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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7740927)

  • 1. Marginal and internal fit of four different types of ceramic inlays after luting. An in vitro study.
    Sjögren G
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1995 Feb; 53(1):24-8. PubMed ID: 7740927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interface gap size of manually and CAD/CAM-manufactured ceramic inlays/onlays in vitro.
    Addi S; Hedayati-Khams A; Poya A; Sjögren G
    J Dent; 2002 Jan; 30(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 11741736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC inLab and hot-pressed techniques.
    Keshvad A; Hooshmand T; Asefzadeh F; Khalilinejad F; Alihemmati M; Van Noort R
    J Prosthodont; 2011 Oct; 20(7):535-40. PubMed ID: 21806704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Luting composite thickness of two ceramic inlay systems.
    Sertgöz A; Gemalmaz D; Alkumru H; Yoruç B
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 1995 Jun; 3(4):151-4. PubMed ID: 8601157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Filler content and gap width after luting of ceramic inlays, using the ultrasonic insertion technique and composite resin cements. An in vitro study.
    Sjögren G; Hedlund SO
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1997 Dec; 55(6):403-7. PubMed ID: 9477035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. In vitro evaluation of fit of adhesively luted ceramic inlays.
    Audenino G; Bresciano ME; Bassi F; Carossa S
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(4):342-7. PubMed ID: 10635204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems.
    Molin MK; Karlsson SL
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 11203631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Margin gap size of ceramic inlays using second-generation CAD/CAM equipment.
    Sturdevant JR; Bayne SC; Heymann HO
    J Esthet Dent; 1999; 11(4):206-14. PubMed ID: 10825877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of class II CAD/CAM ceramic restorations with different resinous bases and interface treatments.
    Sandoval MJ; Rocca GT; Krejci I; Mandikos M; Dietschi D
    Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Dec; 19(9):2167-77. PubMed ID: 25877233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Interface dimensions of CEREC-2 MOD inlays.
    Martin N; Jedynakiewicz NM
    Dent Mater; 2000 Jan; 16(1):68-74. PubMed ID: 11203526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of marginal fit and microleakage of ceramic and composite inlays: an in vitro study.
    Thordrup M; Isidor F; Hörsted-Bindslev P
    J Dent; 1994 Jun; 22(3):147-53. PubMed ID: 8027457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays.
    Thordrup M; Isidor F; Hörsted-Bindslev P
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Mar; 32(3):199-205. PubMed ID: 12066659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A 3-year study of inlays milled from machinable ceramic blocks representing 2 different inlay systems.
    Thordrup M; Isidor F; Hörsted-Bindslev P
    Quintessence Int; 1999 Dec; 30(12):829-36. PubMed ID: 10765860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Relation between cavity design and marginal adaptation in a machine-milled ceramic restorative system.
    Sato K; Matsumura H; Atsuta M
    J Oral Rehabil; 2002 Jan; 29(1):24-7. PubMed ID: 11844028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Three-year evaluation of computer-machined ceramic inlays: influence of luting agent.
    Zuellig-Singer R; Bryant RW
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Sep; 29(9):573-82. PubMed ID: 9807141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Marginal fit of heat-pressed vs. CAD/CAM processed all-ceramic onlays using a milling unit prototype.
    Reich S; Gozdowski S; Trentzsch L; Frankenberger R; Lohbauer U
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(6):644-50. PubMed ID: 19051857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The fit of gold inlays and three ceramic inlay systems. A clinical and in vitro study.
    Molin M; Karlsson S
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1993 Aug; 51(4):201-6. PubMed ID: 8237304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Marginal leakage in class II-restorations after use of ceramic-inserts luted with different materials.
    Hahn P; Schaller HG; Müllner U; Hellwig E
    J Oral Rehabil; 1998 Aug; 25(8):567-74. PubMed ID: 9781859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Marginal adaptation, fracture load and macroscopic failure mode of adhesively luted PMMA-based CAD/CAM inlays.
    Ender A; Bienz S; Mörmann W; Mehl A; Attin T; Stawarczyk B
    Dent Mater; 2016 Feb; 32(2):e22-9. PubMed ID: 26723841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A 5-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays (Cerec) cemented with a dual-cured or chemically cured resin composite luting agent.
    Sjögren G; Molin M; van Dijken JW
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1998 Oct; 56(5):263-7. PubMed ID: 9860093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.