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 *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3862798)

  • 1. Wear patterns of composite restorative resins in vivo; observations by scanning electron microscopy.
    Xu HC; Tong W; Song SQ
    J Oral Rehabil; 1985 Sep; 12(5):389-400. PubMed ID: 3862798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A study of surfaces developed on composite resins in vivo during 4.5 years; observations by SEM.
    Xu HC; Tong W; Vingerling PA; Song SQ
    J Oral Rehabil; 1989 Jul; 16(4):407-16. PubMed ID: 2795317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Abrasive wear and surface roughness of contemporary dental composite resin.
    Han JM; Zhang H; Choe HS; Lin H; Zheng G; Hong G
    Dent Mater J; 2014; 33(6):725-32. PubMed ID: 25007731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Wear of composite resins in permanent posterior teeth.
    Swift EJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1987 Oct; 115(4):584-8. PubMed ID: 3309000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In vitro wear response of composite resin, amalgam, and enamel.
    Powell JM; Phillips RW; Norman RD
    J Dent Res; 1975; 54(6):1183-95. PubMed ID: 1059657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Microscopic observations of the wear of a tooth restorative composite in vivo.
    Abell AK; Leinfelder KF; Turner DT
    J Biomed Mater Res; 1983 May; 17(3):501-7. PubMed ID: 6223040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of the abrasive wear resistance between amalgams, hybrid composite material and different dental cements.
    Gil FJ; Espias A; Sánchez LA; Planell JA
    Int Dent J; 1999 Dec; 49(6):337-42. PubMed ID: 10907431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Attrition at the enamel-restoration interface.
    Chowdhury MU; Kobayashi K; Uchiyama Y
    Asian J Aesthet Dent; 1995; 3():23-30. PubMed ID: 9063106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Composites versus amalgam: comparative measurements of abrasion resistance in vivo: 1-year results].
    Meier C; Lutz F
    SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd; 1979 Mar; 89(3):203-12. PubMed ID: 293032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The in-depth sealing properties of amalgam and composite restorative materials.
    Ghafouri SN; Ball PC; Fitch RK
    Br Dent J; 1982 Dec; 153(11):400-4. PubMed ID: 6758823
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the wear resistance of new nanocomposite resin restorative materials.
    Yesil ZD; Alapati S; Johnston W; Seghi RR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jun; 99(6):435-43. PubMed ID: 18514665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Wear of composite resin in vitro: a testing machine with rubber plate. Preliminary results.
    Hengchang X; Vingerling PA; Wenyi L; Gang Z; Tong W
    J Oral Rehabil; 1990 Jan; 17(1):107-15. PubMed ID: 2137165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Wear of composite resin inlays and antagonistic enamel.
    Young HL; Suzuki S
    Am J Dent; 1999 Feb; 12(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 10477999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgams.
    Hu X; Marquis PM; Shortall AC
    J Prosthet Dent; 1999 Aug; 82(2):214-20. PubMed ID: 10424987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials.
    Gladys S; Van Meerbeek B; Braem M; Lambrechts P; Vanherle G
    J Dent Res; 1997 Apr; 76(4):883-94. PubMed ID: 9126185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Wear patterns and rates of posterior composite resins.
    Leinfelder KF
    Int Dent J; 1987 Sep; 37(3):152-7. PubMed ID: 3316043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of a leucite-containing ceramic filler on the abrasive wear of dental composites.
    Atai M; Yassini E; Amini M; Watts DC
    Dent Mater; 2007 Sep; 23(9):1181-7. PubMed ID: 17507087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of organic peroxide additives on wear resistance of composite resin.
    Suzuki S; Leinfelder KF
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1997 Oct; 18(10):1006-8, 1009-11. PubMed ID: 9533310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The influence of a packable resin composite, conventional resin composite and amalgam on molar cuspal stiffness.
    Molinaro JD; Diefenderfer KE; Strother JM
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(5):516-24. PubMed ID: 12216572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.