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 *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34759680)

  • 21. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study.
    Diwanji A; Dhar V; Arora R; Madhusudan A; Rathore AS
    J Nat Sci Biol Med; 2014 Jul; 5(2):373-7. PubMed ID: 25097418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials.
    Wilder AD; Swift EJ; May KN; Thompson JY; McDougal RA
    J Dent; 2000 Jul; 28(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 10785304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Gingival microleakage of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations.
    Behery H; El-Mowafy O; El-Badrawy W; Nabih S; Saleh B
    Dent Med Probl; 2018; 55(4):383-388. PubMed ID: 30648363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Microleakage of Er:YAG laser and dental bur prepared cavities in primary teeth restored with different adhesive restorative materials.
    Baghalian A; Nakhjavani YB; Hooshmand T; Motahhary P; Bahramian H
    Lasers Med Sci; 2013 Nov; 28(6):1453-60. PubMed ID: 23135785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems.
    Kasraei S; Azarsina M; Majidi S
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 21702678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: An in vitro study.
    Singla T; Pandit IK; Srivastava N; Gugnani N; Gupta M
    Saudi Dent J; 2012 Jan; 24(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 23960526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Four Different Materials in the Repair of Amalgam Restorations: An
    Chavan A; Darak P; Vallabhaneni S; Peerzade SM; Shenvi S; Patil TN
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Jul; 21(7):741-747. PubMed ID: 33020356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of a bioactive restorative material.
    Owens BM; Phebus JG; Johnson WW
    Gen Dent; 2018; 66(3):32-36. PubMed ID: 29714697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of various surface protections on the margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements.
    Chuang SF; Jin YT; Tsai PF; Wong TY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Sep; 86(3):309-14. PubMed ID: 11552169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An
    Meshram P; Meshram V; Palve D; Patil S; Gade V; Raut A
    Indian J Dent Res; 2019; 30(3):403-407. PubMed ID: 31397416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Marginal microleakage and modified microtensile bond strength of Activa Bioactive, in comparison with conventional restorative materials.
    Tohidkhah S; Kermanshah H; Ahmadi E; Jalalian B; Ranjbar Omrani L
    Clin Exp Dent Res; 2022 Feb; 8(1):329-335. PubMed ID: 35037730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Comparative evaluation of marginal microleakage of three different resins in Class V composite restorations].
    Zhu Z; Zhu YQ
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2017 Jun; 26(3):241-245. PubMed ID: 29098237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Microleakage of light-cured resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer dentin bonding agents applied with co-cure vs pre-cure technique.
    Tulunoglu O; Uçtaşh M; Alaçam A; Omürlü H
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):292-8. PubMed ID: 11203833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Cavities restored with the Embrace WetBond Class V Composite Resin and Conventional Opallis Composite Resin.
    Tavangar M; Zohri Z; Sheikhnezhad H; Shahbeig S
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Oct; 18(10):867-873. PubMed ID: 28989122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners.
    Simi B; Suprabha B
    J Conserv Dent; 2011 Apr; 14(2):178-81. PubMed ID: 21814362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement on primary teeth restorations.
    Tolidis K; Boutsiouki C; Gerasimou P
    Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2016 Sep; 17(3):227-233. PubMed ID: 27759413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and dentin shear bond strength of three restorative materials.
    Kumari A; Singh N
    Biomater Investig Dent; 2022; 9(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 35174335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Microleakage of Four Dental Cements in Metal Ceramic Restorations With Open Margins.
    Eftekhar Ashtiani R; Farzaneh B; Azarsina M; Aghdashi F; Dehghani N; Afshari A; Mahshid M
    Iran Red Crescent Med J; 2015 Nov; 17(11):e19611. PubMed ID: 26730349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Microleakage Evaluation of an Alkasite Restorative Material: An
    Kini A; Shetty S; Bhat R; Shetty P
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2019 Nov; 20(11):1315-1318. PubMed ID: 31892684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An in vitro microleakage study of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin versus different flowable materials.
    Sadeghi M
    Dent Res J (Isfahan); 2012 Jul; 9(4):460-5. PubMed ID: 23162589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.