These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26231302)

  • 21. Marginal behaviour of self-etch adhesive/composite and combined amalgam-composite restorations.
    Kournetas N; Kakaboura A; Giftopoulos D; Chakmachi M; Rahiotis C; Geis-Gerstorfer J
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2010 Jun; 18(2):70-7. PubMed ID: 20698421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Change in size of replaced amalgam restorations: a methodological study.
    Mjör IA; Reep RL; Kubilis PS; Mondragón BE
    Oper Dent; 1998; 23(5):272-7. PubMed ID: 9863449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Three-year clinical evaluation of cuspal coverage with combined composite-amalgam in endodontically-treated maxillary premolars.
    Shafiei F; Memarpour M; Doozandeh M
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):599-604. PubMed ID: 21179997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Sealing composite with defective margins, good care or over treatment? Results of a 10-year clinical trial.
    Fernández E; Martin J; Vildósola P; Estay J; de Oliveira Júnior OB; Gordan V; Mjor I; Gonzalez J; Loguercio AD; Moncada G
    Oper Dent; 2015; 40(2):144-52. PubMed ID: 25535778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations.
    Mjör IA; Qvist V
    J Dent; 1997 Jan; 25(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 9080736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Marginal seal composition in amalgam restored teeth of varying marginal leakage.
    Grossman ES; Witcomb MJ; Matejka JM
    J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1997 Mar; 52(3):157-64. PubMed ID: 9461907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
    Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Anaerobic microflora under Class I and Class II composite and amalgam restorations.
    Splieth C; Bernhardt O; Heinrich A; Bernhardt H; Meyer G
    Quintessence Int; 2003; 34(7):497-503. PubMed ID: 12946067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive agents with dye under vacuum: an in vitro study.
    Parolia A; Kundabala M; Gupta V; Verma M; Batra C; Shenoy R; Srikant N
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):252-5. PubMed ID: 21891895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations in Germany.
    Friedl KH; Hiller KA; Schmalz G
    Oper Dent; 1994; 19(6):228-32. PubMed ID: 9028243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2008; 118(4):290-5. PubMed ID: 18491670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A long-term evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of resin-based composite restorations: results of a seven-year study.
    Gordan VV; Garvan CW; Blaser PK; Mondragon E; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2009 Dec; 140(12):1476-84. PubMed ID: 19955065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Evaluation of dental restorations: a comparative study between clinical and digital photographic assessments.
    Moncada G; Silva F; Angel P; Oliveira OB; Fresno MC; Cisternas P; Fernandez E; Estay J; Martin J
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(2):E45-56. PubMed ID: 23937403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
    Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical performance and wear resistance of two compomers in posterior occlusal restorations of permanent teeth: six-year follow-up.
    Lund RG; Sehn FP; Piva E; Detoni D; Moura FR; Cardoso PE; Demarco FF
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(2):118-23. PubMed ID: 17427819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months.
    Holan G; Chosack A; Eidelman E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1996; 63(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 8958346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.