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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4528925)

  • 1. Long term follow-up of clinical evaluations of lathe-cute versus spherical amalgam.
    Osborne JW; Gale EN
    J Dent Res; 1974; 53(5):1204-7. PubMed ID: 4528925
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An evaluation of a lathe-cut high-copper amalgam alloy.
    Knibbs PJ; Plant CG; Shovelton DS; Jones PA
    J Oral Rehabil; 1987 Sep; 14(5):465-73. PubMed ID: 3312541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Plastic deformation of the amalgam restoration as related to cavity design and alloy system.
    Galan J; Phillips RW; Swartz ML
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1973 Dec; 87(7):1395-400. PubMed ID: 4518562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of impact loading upon Class II amalgam restoration.
    Johnson BE
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1972; 39(3):206-14. PubMed ID: 4553905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Marginal micro leakage at cementum-amalgam interface; an in vitro study.
    Bhat KS; Murthy KS
    J Indian Dent Assoc; 1974 Nov; 46(11):421-6. PubMed ID: 4535421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The strength of class II amalgam restorations with and without pins.
    Mondelli J; Vieira DF
    J Prosthet Dent; 1972 Aug; 28(2):179-88. PubMed ID: 4504302
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Deformation of human teeth under the action of an amalgam matrix band.
    Powell GL; Nicholls JI; Shurtz DE
    Oper Dent; 1977; 2(2):64-9. PubMed ID: 271301
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Fracture strength of Class II amalgam restorations condensed over protective bases.
    Vieira DF; Mondelli J
    J Prosthet Dent; 1973 Aug; 30(2):166-72. PubMed ID: 4515671
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of differences in amalgam restorations on examination standardization.
    Cobb DS
    J Dent Educ; 1997 Dec; 61(12):938-40. PubMed ID: 9457136
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Experimental studies on the marginal adherence of amalgams. I. Amalcap].
    Lisiewicz-Dyduch J
    Czas Stomatol; 1977 Sep; 30(9):709-14. PubMed ID: 269050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fracture strength of amalgam restorations in modern Class II preparations with proximal retentive grooves.
    Mondelli J; Ishikiriama A; de Lima Navarro MF; Galan J Junior ; coradazzi JL
    J Prosthet Dent; 1974 Nov; 32(5):564-71. PubMed ID: 4531487
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of compaction technic and mercury: alloy ratio on the adaptation of spherical alloy dental amalgam.
    Azar ES; Gardner KD; Hodson JT; Stibbs GD
    J Dent Res; 1969; 48(5):879-82. PubMed ID: 5261300
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Marginal fracture of amalgam restorations.
    Mahler DB; Terkla LG; Van Eysden J
    J Dent Res; 1973; 52(4):823-7. PubMed ID: 4515865
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [An ideal form of dental cavity preparation for amalgam restoration].
    Steagall L
    RGO; 1979; 27(2):115-9. PubMed ID: 317749
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Comparative clinical study of amalgam fillings].
    Szabó J; Herczegh B; Márk D; Tóth E; Bánóczy J
    Fogorv Sz; 1998; 91(8-9):285-91. PubMed ID: 9729672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of cement bases on the stresses in amalgam restorations.
    Farah JW; Hood JA; Craig RG
    J Dent Res; 1975; 54(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 1053748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Amalgam onlay restoration].
    Doukoudakis S
    Hell Stomatol Chron; 1989; 33(3):191-8. PubMed ID: 2486357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Valuable clinical amalgam procedures and choices of alloys.
    Eames WB
    Rev Belge Med Dent; 1978; 33(4):363-81. PubMed ID: 291077
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Retention of amalgam restorations: undercuts versus bonding.
    Staninec M
    Quintessence Int; 1989 May; 20(5):347-51. PubMed ID: 2667020
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.