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.
3. A rational use of dental materials in posterior direct resin restorations in order to control polymerization shrinkage stress. Giachetti L; Bertini F; Bambi C; Scaminaci Russo D Minerva Stomatol; 2007 Mar; 56(3):129-38. PubMed ID: 17327817 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An in vitro investigation of marginal leakage using two composite resin restorative systems. Martin DW J Calif Dent Assoc (1961); 1980 Mar; 8(3):41-6. PubMed ID: 7005244 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. A review of polymerization shrinkage stress: current techniques for posterior direct resin restorations. Giachetti L; Scaminaci Russo D; Bambi C; Grandini R J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Sep; 7(4):79-88. PubMed ID: 16957794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Determination of mode of fracture of adhesive restorative materials. An invitro study. Nayak UA; Suasha P Indian J Dent Res; 2002; 13(2):112-4. PubMed ID: 12420578 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fracture toughness comparison of six resin composites. Watanabe H; Khera SC; Vargas MA; Qian F Dent Mater; 2008 Mar; 24(3):418-25. PubMed ID: 17697707 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of three direct restorative materials on molar cuspal fracture resistance. Allara FW; Diefenderfer KE; Molinaro JD Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):228-32. PubMed ID: 15478480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite resin restorations: a new restorative technique. Lutz E; Krejci I; Oldenburg TR Quintessence Int; 1986 Dec; 17(12):777-84. PubMed ID: 3468527 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Yamada Y; Tsubota Y; Fukushima S Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 15008239 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The effect of resin composite pins on the retention of class IV restorations. Muhlbauer JA; Dunn WJ; Roberts HW; Murchison DF Oper Dent; 2002; 27(3):284-8. PubMed ID: 12022461 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Can a single composite resin serve all purposes? Roeters JJ; Shortall AC; Opdam NJ Br Dent J; 2005 Jul; 199(2):73-9; quiz 114. PubMed ID: 16041332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Support of undermined occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials. Latino C; Troendle K; Summitt JB Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):287-91. PubMed ID: 12066648 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]