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 *

367 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28983533)

  • 1. Posterior indirect adhesive restorations (PIAR): preparation designs and adhesthetics clinical protocol.
    Ferraris F
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2017; 12(4):482-502. PubMed ID: 28983533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Posterior indirect adhesive 
restorations: updated indications 
and the Morphology Driven 
Preparation Technique.
    Veneziani M
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2017; 12(2):204-230. PubMed ID: 28653051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of posterior indirect adhesive restorations (PIAR) with different preparation designs according to the adhesthetics classification. Part 1: Effects on the fracture resistance.
    Ferraris F; Sammarco E; Romano G; Cincera S; Marchesi G
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2021 May; 16(2):144-167. PubMed ID: 33969972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
    Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Fracture resistance of root filled premolar teeth restored with direct composite resin with or without cusp coverage.
    Xie KX; Wang XY; Gao XJ; Yuan CY; Li JX; Chu CH
    Int Endod J; 2012 Jun; 45(6):524-9. PubMed ID: 22242600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of glass ionomer cement or composite resin bases on restoration of cuspal stiffness of endodontically treated premolars in vitro.
    Hofmann N; Just N; Haller B; Hugo B; Klaiber B
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Jun; 2(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 15490780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques.
    Siso SH; Hürmüzlü F; Turgut M; Altundaşar E; Serper A; Er K
    Int Endod J; 2007 Mar; 40(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 17305692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of two dentin adhesives in cervical lesions.
    Van Meerbeek B; Braem M; Lambrechts P; Vanherle G
    J Prosthet Dent; 1993 Oct; 70(4):308-14. PubMed ID: 8229880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of adhesive system and bevel preparation on fracture strength of teeth restored with composite resin.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH; Rocha Ada C; Rubini A; Klein-Júnior CA; Demarco FF
    Braz Dent J; 2010; 21(4):327-31. PubMed ID: 20976383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations.
    Plotino G; Buono L; Grande NM; Lamorgese V; Somma F
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Mar; 99(3):225-32. PubMed ID: 18319094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Functional and aesthetic guidelines for stress-reduced direct posterior composite restorations.
    Deliperi S
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(4):425-31. PubMed ID: 22816500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reinforcement of weakened cusps by adhesive restorative materials: an in-vitro study.
    Macpherson LC; Smith BG
    Br Dent J; 1995 May; 178(9):341-4. PubMed ID: 7766457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Class II composite restorations: importance of cervical enamel in vitro.
    Laegreid T; Gjerdet NR; Vult von Steyern P; Johansson AK
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):187-95. PubMed ID: 21777100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of posterior indirect adhesive restorations (PIAR) with different preparations designs according to the adhesthetics classification.
    Ferraris F; Mascetti T; Tognini M; Testori M; Colledani A; Marchesi G
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2021 Aug; 16(3):262-279. PubMed ID: 34319663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays.
    Hannig C; Westphal C; Becker K; Attin T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Oct; 94(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 16198171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth, with variable marginal ridge thicknesses, restored with composite resin and composite resin reinforced with Ribbond: an in vitro study.
    Kalburge V; Yakub SS; Kalburge J; Hiremath H; Chandurkar A
    Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(2):193-8. PubMed ID: 23965445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Immediate dentin sealing in indirect restorations of dental fractures in paediatric dentistry.
    Perugia C; Ferraro E; Docimo R
    Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2013 Jun; 14(2):146-9. PubMed ID: 23758466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Strain measurements and fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with all-ceramic restorations.
    Seow LL; Toh CG; Wilson NH
    J Dent; 2015 Jan; 43(1):126-32. PubMed ID: 25448436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fracture resistance of re-attached coronal fragments--influence of different adhesive materials and bevel preparation.
    Demarco FF; Fay RM; Pinzon LM; Powers JM
    Dent Traumatol; 2004 Jun; 20(3):157-63. PubMed ID: 15144447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Uncommon crown-root fracture treated with adhesive tooth fragment reattachment: 7 years of follow-up.
    dos Santos CL; Trevisan CL; Luvizuto ER; Panzarini SR; Poi WR; Sonoda CK
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2011; 32(9):E132-5. PubMed ID: 23627306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.