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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28642569)

  • 1. No evidence that bonding is needed for amalgam restorations.
    Keenan JR; Veitz-Keenan A
    Evid Based Dent; 2017 Jun; 18(2):45. PubMed ID: 28642569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries.
    Agnihotry A; Fedorowicz Z; Nasser M
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Mar; 3(3):CD007517. PubMed ID: 26954446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries.
    Fedorowicz Z; Nasser M; Wilson N
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2009 Oct; (4):CD007517. PubMed ID: 19821423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Setcos JC; Staninec M; Wilson NH
    J Adhes Dent; 1999; 1(4):323-31. PubMed ID: 11725662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. A comparative study of bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations in general dental practice.
    Worskett P
    Br Dent J; 2013 Apr; 214(7):E19. PubMed ID: 23579163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The integrity of bonded amalgam restorations: a clinical evaluation after five years.
    Mach Z; Regent J; Staninec M; Mrklas L; Setcos JC
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2002 Apr; 133(4):460-7; quiz 493. PubMed ID: 11991463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Secondary caries around amalgam restorations.
    Pimenta LA; Navarro MF; Consolaro A
    J Prosthet Dent; 1995 Sep; 74(3):219-22. PubMed ID: 7473273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of pulp protection technique on the clinical performance of amalgam restorations: three-year results.
    Baratieri LN; Machado A; Van Noort R; Ritter AV; Baratieri NM
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 12120767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-olds attending Public Dental Service-A 13-year observation.
    Palotie U; Eronen AK; Vehkalahti K; Vehkalahti MM
    J Dent; 2017 Jul; 62():13-17. PubMed ID: 28529175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations in endodontically treated premolar teeth: a one-year evaluation.
    Ahrari F; Nojoomian M; Moosavi H
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Oct; 11(5):009-16. PubMed ID: 20978719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Six-year clinical evaluation of bonded and pin-retained complex amalgam restorations.
    Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Berry TG; Robbins JW; Osborne JW; Haveman CW
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(3):261-8. PubMed ID: 15195725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
    Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in school children after 6.3 years.
    Frencken JE; van't Hof MA; Taifour D; Al-Zaher I
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 2007 Jun; 35(3):207-14. PubMed ID: 17518967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Evidence summary: which dental liners under amalgam restorations are more effective in reducing postoperative sensitivity?
    Nasser M
    Br Dent J; 2011 Jun; 210(11):533-7. PubMed ID: 21660022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.