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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27011734)

  • 61. A Systematic Review of Amalgam Bonded Restorations: In vitro and Clinical Findings.
    Brian HC; Lam OL; Jagannathan N; Botelho MG
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):1013-1024. PubMed ID: 30150506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Efficacy of bonded and nonbonded amalgam in the treatment of teeth with incomplete fractures.
    Davis R; Overton JD
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2000 Apr; 131(4):469-78. PubMed ID: 10770009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. 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]  

  • 64. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years.
    Poon EC; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1533-40. PubMed ID: 16329416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Factors relating to usage patterns of amalgam and resin composite for posterior restorations--a prospective analysis.
    Khalaf ME; Alomari QD; Omar R
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):785-92. PubMed ID: 24769386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice.
    Bonsor SJ; Chadwick RG
    Br Dent J; 2009 Jan; 206(2):E3; discussion 88-9. PubMed ID: 19148188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations.
    Loguercio AD; Rezende M; Gutierrez MF; Costa TF; Armas-Vega A; Reis A
    J Dent; 2019 Jun; 85():93-102. PubMed ID: 31100332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Endodontic complications after plastic restorations in general practice.
    Whitworth JM; Myers PM; Smith J; Walls AW; McCabe JF
    Int Endod J; 2005 Jun; 38(6):409-16. PubMed ID: 15910477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. No available evidence to assess the effectiveness of bonded amalgams.
    Murad M
    Evid Based Dent; 2009; 10(4):106. PubMed ID: 20023615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations.
    Yazici AR; Antonson SA; Kutuk ZB; Ergin E
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(5):478-485. PubMed ID: 28581919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations: results of a seven-year clinical study.
    Gordan VV; Riley JL; Blaser PK; Mondragon E; Garvan CW; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2011 Jul; 142(7):842-9. PubMed ID: 21719808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Amalgam and composite posterior restorations: curriculum versus practice in operative dentistry at a US dental school.
    Ottenga ME; Mjör I
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):524-8. PubMed ID: 17910231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
    Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Comparative evaluation of combined amalgam and composite resin restorations in extensively carious vital posterior teeth: An in vivo study.
    Kaur G; Singh M; Bal C; Singh U
    J Conserv Dent; 2011 Jan; 14(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 21691506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. A 12-month clinical trial examining the effects of a surface sealant on Class I composite resin restorations.
    Nahsan F; Wang L; Modena K; Francisconi-dos-Rios L; da Silva L; Calabria M; Casas-Apayco L; Mondelli RF
    Gen Dent; 2016; 64(2):18-20. PubMed ID: 26943083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up.
    Gönülol N; Kalyoncuoğlu E; Ertaş E; Misilli T
    Clin Oral Investig; 2019 May; 23(5):2323-2330. PubMed ID: 30293184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Six-month and one-year clinical evaluation of a composite resin for class II restorations.
    Nuckles DB; Fingar WW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1975 Nov; 91(5):1017-22. PubMed ID: 1058913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Cusp fracture resistance in composite-amalgam combined restorations.
    Franchi M; Breschi L; Ruggeri O
    J Dent; 1999 Jan; 27(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 9922612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Restorative service patterns in Australia: amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer restorations.
    Brennan DS; Spencer AJ
    Int Dent J; 2003 Dec; 53(6):455-63. PubMed ID: 14725373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2015 Oct; 31(10):1232-44. PubMed ID: 26321155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.