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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37814834)

  • 21. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner.
    Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Two-year clinical evaluation of nonvital tooth whitening and resin composite restorations.
    Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2005; 17(6):369-78; discussion 379. PubMed ID: 16417833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Franco G; Estrada BE; Brackett WW
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 20533626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Early marginal microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations.
    Prati C
    Dent Mater; 1989 Nov; 5(6):392-8. PubMed ID: 2700974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The current state of adhesive dentistry: a guide for clinical practice.
    Mante FK; Ozer F; Walter R; Atlas AM; Saleh N; Dietschi D; Blatz MB
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2013; 34 Spec 9():2-8. PubMed ID: 24571402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The clinical performance of a new adhesive resin system in class V and IV restorations.
    Duke ES; Robbins JW; Trevino D
    Compendium; 1994 Jul; 15(7):852, 854, 856 passim; quiz 864. PubMed ID: 7728815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Marginal adaptation of Class V restorations using different restorative techniques.
    Krejci I; Lutz F
    J Dent; 1991 Feb; 19(1):24-32. PubMed ID: 1901872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Restorations of eroded areas.
    Mount GJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1990 Jan; 120(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 2404041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Selection defines design.
    Terry DA; Geller W
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2004; 16(4):213-25; discussion 226. PubMed ID: 15672614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Preheated composite resin used as a luting agent for indirect restorations: effects on bond strength and resin-dentin interfaces.
    Goulart M; Borges Veleda B; Damin D; Bovi Ambrosano GM; Coelho de Souza FH; Erhardt MCG
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2018; 13(1):86-97. PubMed ID: 29379905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of shear bond strength and interfacial micromorphology of direct restorations in primary and permanent teeth--an in vitro study.
    da Costa CC; Oshima HM; Costa Filho LC
    Gen Dent; 2008; 56(1):85-93; quiz 94-5, 111-2. PubMed ID: 18254567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in class V non-carious lesions.
    van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2000 Jul; 16(4):285-91. PubMed ID: 10831784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Microleakage of glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations in cut non-retentive preparations and pre-existing cervical erosion/abrasion lesions.
    Kaplan I; Harris EF; Mincer HH; Gilpatrick RO
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1993 Apr; 73(2):24-8. PubMed ID: 8309244
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area.
    Carnaggio TV; Conrad R; Engelmeier RL; Gerngross P; Paravina R; Perezous L; Powers JM
    J Prosthodont; 2012 Oct; 21(7):523-8. PubMed ID: 22469271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. An evaluation of different adhesive restorations in cervical lesions.
    Vanherle G; Lambrechts P; Braem M
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Mar; 65(3):341-7. PubMed ID: 1829111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A confocal optical microscope study of the morphology of the tooth/restoration interface using Scotchbond 2 dentin adhesive.
    Watson TF
    J Dent Res; 1989 Jun; 68(6):1124-31. PubMed ID: 2681307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Dentin-enamel adhesives in pediatric dentistry: an update.
    García-Godoy F; Donly KJ
    Pediatr Dent; 2015; 37(2):133-5. PubMed ID: 25905654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical evaluation of two posterior composite resins retained with bonding agents.
    Shintani H; Satou N; Satou J
    J Prosthet Dent; 1989 Dec; 62(6):627-32. PubMed ID: 2685254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical, double blind, randomized controlled trial of experimental adhesive protocols in caries-affected dentin.
    Pintado-Palomino K; de Almeida CVVB; da Motta RJG; Fortes JHP; Tirapelli C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2019 Apr; 23(4):1855-1864. PubMed ID: 30218228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.