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.
64. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. Bernardo M; Luis H; Martin MD; Leroux BG; Rue T; Leitão J; DeRouen TA J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):775-83. PubMed ID: 17545266 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Bonded amalgam restorations: a comparative study of glass-ionomer and resin adhesives. al-Moayad M; Aboush YE; Elderton RJ Br Dent J; 1993 Nov; 175(10):363-7. PubMed ID: 8257646 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. 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]
67. Factors relating to usage patterns of amalgam and resin composite for posterior restorations--a prospective analysis. Khalaf ME; Alomari QD; Omar R J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):785-92. PubMed ID: 24769386 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Seal, replacement or monitoring amalgam restorations with occlusal marginal defects? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. Moncada G; Fernández E; Mena K; Martin J; Vildósola P; De Oliveira Junior OB; Estay J; Mjör IA; Gordan VV J Dent; 2015 Nov; 43(11):1371-8. PubMed ID: 26231302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Martin J; Fernandez E; Estay J; Gordan VV; Mjor IA; Moncada G Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 22788726 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Placement and replacement rates of amalgam and composite restorations on posterior teeth in a military population. Owen BD; Guevara PH; Greenwood W US Army Med Dep J; 2017; (2-17):88-94. PubMed ID: 28853125 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Fluoride-releasing resin bonding of amalgam restorations in primary teeth: in vitro secondary caries effect. Hicks J; Milano M; Seybold S; García-Godoy F; Flaitz C Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):361-4. PubMed ID: 12691270 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. Amalgam type, adhesive system, and storage period as influencing factors on microleakage of amalgam restorations. Ziskind D; Venezia E; Kreisman I; Mass E J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Sep; 90(3):255-60. PubMed ID: 12942059 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. The effect of time on the marginal fracture behaviour of amalgam. Mahler DB; Marantz RL J Oral Rehabil; 1979 Oct; 6(4):391-8. PubMed ID: 387926 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. The interval nature of an ordinal scale for measuring the marginal fracture of amalgam. Mahler DB; Engle JH; Phillips DS Dent Mater; 1993 May; 9(3):162-6. PubMed ID: 8056170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. Electrical potentials of restorations in subjects without oral complaints. Muller AW; Van Loon LA; Davidson CL J Oral Rehabil; 1990 Sep; 17(5):419-24. PubMed ID: 2231160 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Early strength and adaptability of amalgam in relation to coherence time. Watts DC; Combe EC Dent Mater; 1993 Mar; 9(2):74-8. PubMed ID: 8595845 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Comparative study on the marginal strengths of conventional and spherical amalgam alloys--invention of a device for the measurement of marginal strength. Nagai K; Ohashi M; Hasegawa K J Nihon Univ Sch Dent; 1967 Jun; 9(2):49-66. PubMed ID: 5235261 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
80. Clinical behaviour over three years of GS-80 and Lojic+ amalgam alloys. Smales RJ; Gerke DC Aust Dent J; 1994 Dec; 39(6):344-7. PubMed ID: 7832680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]