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 *

282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26662120)

  • 21. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems.
    Molin MK; Karlsson SL
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 11203631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Six-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays.
    Galiatsatos AA; Bergou D
    Quintessence Int; 2008 May; 39(5):407-12. PubMed ID: 19088955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements.
    Frankenberger R; Lohbauer U; Schaible RB; Nikolaenko SA; Naumann M
    Dent Mater; 2008 Feb; 24(2):185-91. PubMed ID: 17544101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting.
    Arnelund CF; Johansson A; Ericson M; Häger P; Fyrberg KA
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(3):302-6. PubMed ID: 15237876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Microleakage of IPS empress 2 inlay restorations luted with self-adhesive resin cements.
    Cal E; Celik EU; Turkun M
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(4):417-24. PubMed ID: 22360365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical investigation of extended ceramic veneers.
    Guess PC; Stappert CF
    Dent Mater; 2008 Jun; 24(6):804-13. PubMed ID: 18006051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations.
    Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):60D-76D. PubMed ID: 11763920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Retrospective clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years.
    Felden A; Schmalz G; Federlin M; Hiller KA
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Dec; 2(4):161-7. PubMed ID: 10388388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. All-ceramic partial coverage restorations--midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical splitmouth study.
    Guess PC; Strub JR; Steinhart N; Wolkewitz M; Stappert CF
    J Dent; 2009 Aug; 37(8):627-37. PubMed ID: 19477570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC inLab and hot-pressed techniques.
    Keshvad A; Hooshmand T; Asefzadeh F; Khalilinejad F; Alihemmati M; Van Noort R
    J Prosthodont; 2011 Oct; 20(7):535-40. PubMed ID: 21806704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series.
    Otto T; Schneider D
    Int J Prosthodont; 2008; 21(1):53-9. PubMed ID: 18350948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays.
    Peumans M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Poitevin A; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
    J Adhes Dent; 2010 Apr; 12(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 20157666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and self-cured resin composite luted ceramic inlays. A 5-year clinical evaluation.
    van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2003 Nov; 19(7):670-4. PubMed ID: 12901993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays.
    Peumans M; Voet M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Van Ende A; Van Meerbeek B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Apr; 17(3):739-50. PubMed ID: 22707232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):466-72. PubMed ID: 11203858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Restorations with extensive dentin/enamel-bonded ceramic coverage. A 5-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW; Hasselrot L; Ormin A; Olofsson AL
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2001 Aug; 109(4):222-9. PubMed ID: 11531067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Longitudinal study of pressed glass-ceramic inlays for four and a half years.
    Fradeani M; Aquilano A; Bassein L
    J Prosthet Dent; 1997 Oct; 78(4):346-53. PubMed ID: 9338865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic onlays: a 4-year retrospective study.
    Naeselius K; Arnelund CF; Molin MK
    Int J Prosthodont; 2008; 21(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 18350945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars.
    Dejak B; Mlotkowski A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 18262014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.