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.
101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6595375)
1. In vivo evaluation of occlusal wear of two experimental composites versus amalgam. Hirt T; Lutz F; Roulet JF J Oral Rehabil; 1984 Nov; 11(6):511-20. PubMed ID: 6595375 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Surface roughness and marginal behaviour of experimental and commercial composites: an in vitro study. Roulet JF; Hirt T; Lutz F J Oral Rehabil; 1984 Sep; 11(5):499-509. PubMed ID: 6239020 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration. Welbury RR; Walls AW; Murray JJ; McCabe JF Br Dent J; 1990 Dec 8-22; 169(11):361-6. PubMed ID: 2275837 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [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]
7. [Abrasion measurements in vivo in occlusal composite and amalgam fillings]. Meier C; Lutz F Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1978 Sep; 33(9):617-22. PubMed ID: 279445 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The clinical wear of three posterior composites. Mair LH; Vowles RW; Cunningham J; Williams DF Br Dent J; 1990 Dec 8-22; 169(11):355-60. PubMed ID: 2275836 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Clinical wear of posterior composites]. Fallierou A; Mari A Hell Stomatol Chron; 1989; 33(3):171-83. PubMed ID: 2486355 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear. Lazaridou D; Belli R; Petschelt A; Lohbauer U Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Jul; 19(6):1485-92. PubMed ID: 25491442 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Three-year follow-up of five posterior composites: in vivo wear. Willems G; Lambrechts P; Braem M; Vanherle G J Dent; 1993 Apr; 21(2):74-8. PubMed ID: 8473595 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Effect of occlusal restoration on stresses around class V restoration interface: a finite-element study. Vasudeva G; Bogra P; Nikhil V; Singh V Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):295-302. PubMed ID: 21891903 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars. Cobankara FK; Unlu N; Cetin AR; Ozkan HB Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):526-33. PubMed ID: 18833859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years. Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]