92 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3333832)
1. Special inlay double issue--Part one.
PCR Rep; 1987 Nov; 2(5):1-8. PubMed ID: 3333832
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Modern alternatives to amalgam: cementable restorations and inlays.
Wirz J; Jaeger K
Quintessence Int; 1999 Aug; 30(8):551-6. PubMed ID: 10635268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Inlays and onlays.
Roulet JF; Lösche GM; Noack M
Curr Opin Cosmet Dent; 1993; ():41-54. PubMed ID: 8401823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The indirect aesthetic inlay/onlay.
Hoard RJ
J Indiana Dent Assoc; 1993; 72(5):16-8. PubMed ID: 8040716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Esthetic posterior restorations utilizing the double-inlay technique: a novel approach in esthetic dentistry.
Hannig M; Schmeiser R
Quintessence Int; 1997 Feb; 28(2):79-83. PubMed ID: 10332359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Comparative investigation of accuracy of fit of the composite inlay "Estilux posterior CVS"].
Thierfelder C; Fuhrmann I; Knappe M
Quintessenz; 1991 Sep; 42(9):1399-407. PubMed ID: 1819080
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Special inlay double issue--Part two.
PCR Rep; 1987 Dec; 2(6):1-6. PubMed ID: 3333833
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of aesthetic inlay systems.
Bishop BM
Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg; 1994 Apr; 12():119-30. PubMed ID: 7993040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Tensile bond strength of gold and porcelain inlays to extracted teeth using three cements.
Michelini FS; Belser UC; Scherrer SS; De Rijk WG
Int J Prosthodont; 1995; 8(4):324-31. PubMed ID: 7575974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Materials for conservative posterior restorations.
Donovan TE; Cho GC
J Calif Dent Assoc; 1996 Sep; 24(9):32-8. PubMed ID: 9120610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An improved technique for Class V composite resin inlays.
Boston DW; Kerzie M
Quintessence Int; 1993 Jan; 24(1):19-24. PubMed ID: 8511253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Treatment planning for restorations. Available options.
Arvanitis G
Dent Today; 2004 May; 23(5):70-2. PubMed ID: 15164477
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of interfacial bond strengths between amalgam and composite inlay.
Abdel-Aziz AH; Alhadainy HA
Am J Dent; 1998 Jun; 11(3):131-3. PubMed ID: 9823075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interfacial gaps following ceramic inlay cementation vs direct composites.
Iida K; Inokoshi S; Kurosaki N
Oper Dent; 2003; 28(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 12877431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Impression technic for class V gold and porcelain inlays].
Gkobedaros KX
Hell Stomatol Chron; 1973; 17(2):59-66. PubMed ID: 4589255
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Current developments in the esthetic inlay/onlay.
Leinfelder KF
Dent Econ; 1994 Nov; 84(11):76-7. PubMed ID: 8612892
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. [Inlay fabrication by the direct method].
Arnold M; Wenzel W
Dtsch Stomatol; 1966 Oct; 16(10):781-91. PubMed ID: 5332694
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
