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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 379095)

  • 21. Cavity sealing ability of composite and glass ionomer cement restorations. An assessment in vitro.
    Kidd EA
    Br Dent J; 1978 Mar; 144(5):139-42. PubMed ID: 205229
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results.
    Folwaczny M; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):153-6. PubMed ID: 11572293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: a 2-year clinical evaluation.
    de Araujo MA; Araújo RM; Marsilio AL
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):87-93. PubMed ID: 9643241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Susceptibility of restorations and adjacent enamel/dentine to erosion under different salivary flow conditions.
    Alghilan MA; Cook NB; Platt JA; Eckert GJ; Hara AT
    J Dent; 2015 Dec; 43(12):1476-82. PubMed ID: 26476416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The glass-ionomer-lined cervical composite restoration: an in vitro investigation.
    Brown KB; Swartz ML; Cochran MA; Phillips RW
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(1):17-27. PubMed ID: 8332536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparative quantitative and qualitative assessment of the marginal adaptation and apposition of bonded amalgam restorations using luting glass ionomer and 4-META adhesive liner under a scanning electron microscope. An in vitro study.
    Abraham MM; Sudeep PT; Bhat KS
    Indian J Dent Res; 1999; 10(2):43-53. PubMed ID: 10865391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up.
    Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Palma-Dibb RG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 31(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 15025658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The use of glass ionomer cement in deciduous teeth.
    Plant CG; Shovelton DS; Vlietstra JR; Wartnaby JM
    Br Dent J; 1977 Oct; 143(8):271-4. PubMed ID: 199219
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.
    Fricker JP
    Aust Orthod J; 1997 Mar; 14(4):247-9. PubMed ID: 9528409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Silver-alloy powder and glass ionomer cement.
    Simmons JJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1990 Jan; 120(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 2404043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effect of spherical silica additions on marginal gaps and compressive strength of experimental glass-ionomer cements.
    Irie M; Nagaoka N; Tamada Y; Maruo Y; Nishigawa G; Minagi S; Finger WJ
    Am J Dent; 2011 Oct; 24(5):310-4. PubMed ID: 22165460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Four-year evaluation of the effect of 10% polyacrylic acid or water rinsing pretreatment on retention of glass polyalkenoate cement.
    van Dijken JW
    Eur J Oral Sci; 1996 Feb; 104(1):64-6. PubMed ID: 8653499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 1-year clinical evaluation of Compoglass and Fuji II LC in cervical erosion/abfraction lesions.
    Brackett WW; Browning WD; Ross JA; Gregory PN; Owens BM
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):119-22. PubMed ID: 10649933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities.
    Rahimtoola S; van Amerongen E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 2002; 69(1):16-26, 11. PubMed ID: 12119808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical performance of cervical restorations--a meta-analysis.
    Heintze SD; Ruffieux C; Rousson V
    Dent Mater; 2010 Oct; 26(10):993-1000. PubMed ID: 20638116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months.
    Gao W; Peng D; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jan; 34(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 12674356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Sensitivity restored of Class V abrasion/erosion lesions.
    Powell LV; Gordon GE; Johnson GH
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1990 Dec; 121(6):694-6. PubMed ID: 2148943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.