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 *

296 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26662120)

  • 1. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Freitas MC; Azevedo LM; Santos GC; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Mondelli RF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1683-90. PubMed ID: 26662120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Rubo JH; Santos GC
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 22856680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: two-year clinical follow up.
    Coelho Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 15088722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years.
    Krämer N; Ebert J; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2006 Jan; 22(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 16122784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: a one-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Francischone CE; Lauris JR; de Lima NM
    J Adhes Dent; 2004; 6(4):333-8. PubMed ID: 15779320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: a 2-year in vivo study.
    Taschner M; Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Pelka M; Breschi L; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2012 May; 28(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 22236770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.
    Frankenberger R; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years.
    Krämer N; Taschner M; Lohbauer U; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Aug; 10(4):307-14. PubMed ID: 18792702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years--a clinical study.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R; Pelka M; Petschelt A
    J Dent; 1999 Jul; 27(5):325-31. PubMed ID: 10377606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2005 Mar; 21(3):262-71. PubMed ID: 15705433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. IPS Empress onlays luted with two dual-cured resin cements for endodontically treated teeth: a 3-year clinical evaluation.
    Atali PY; Cakmakcioglu O; Topbasi B; Turkmen C; Suslen O
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 21210001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. IPS Empress inlays luted with a self-adhesive resin cement after 1 year.
    Taschner M; Frankenberger R; García-Godoy F; Rosenbusch S; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Am J Dent; 2009 Feb; 22(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 19281114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Reinelt C; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Dent Mater; 2009 Aug; 25(8):960-8. PubMed ID: 19344946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years.
    Frankenberger R; Taschner M; Garcia-Godoy F; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 19058686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of two types of ceramic inlays and onlays after 6 months.
    Santos MJ; Francischone CE; Santos Júnior GC; Bresciani E; Romanini JC; Saqueto R; Navarro MF
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2004 Sep; 12(3):213-8. PubMed ID: 21049255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Kawamura Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Frankenberger R
    J Dent; 2009 Nov; 37(11):813-9. PubMed ID: 19744761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Two-year clinical evaluation of IPS Empress II ceramic onlays/inlays.
    Tagtekin DA; Ozyöney G; Yanikoglu F
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(4):369-78. PubMed ID: 19678440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fourteen years clinical evaluation of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays luted using two different adhesion strategies.
    Taschner M; Stirnweiss A; Frankenberger R; Kramer N; Galler KM; Maier E
    J Dent; 2022 Aug; 123():104210. PubMed ID: 35760206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Dentin bond strengths of two ceramic inlay systems after cementation with three different techniques and one bonding system.
    Ozturk N; Aykent F
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):275-81. PubMed ID: 12644803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.