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.
2. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. Payne JH J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 10204453 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In vivo evaluation of glass-ionomer cement adhesion to dentin. Mason PN; Ferrari M Quintessence Int; 1994 Jul; 25(7):499-504. PubMed ID: 7991772 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations. Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Hiller KA; Mortazavi F Oper Dent; 1997; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 9227124 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Sealing capacity of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and resin composite placed in vivo in Class 5 restorations. Ferrari M; Davidson CL Oper Dent; 1996; 21(2):69-72. PubMed ID: 8957921 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effectiveness of surface protection for resin-modified glass-ionomer materials. Ribeiro AP; Serra MC; Paulillo LA; Rodrigues Júnior AL Quintessence Int; 1999 Jun; 30(6):427-31. PubMed ID: 10635280 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Leakage patterns associated with glass-ionomer-based resin restorations. Wieczkowski G; Joynt RB; Davis EL; Yu XY; Cleary K Oper Dent; 1992; 17(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 1437682 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Influence of protecting agents on the solubility of glass ionomers. Rodrigues Garcia RC; De Góes MF; Del Bel Cury AA Am J Dent; 1995 Dec; 8(6):294-6. PubMed ID: 8695005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Marginal leakage of combinations of glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations. Sarne S; Mante MO; Mante FK J Clin Dent; 1996; 7(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 9238879 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Quantitative microleakage evaluation around amalgam restorations with different treatments on cavity walls. de Morais PM; Rodrigues Júnior AL; Pimenta LA Oper Dent; 1999; 24(4):217-22. PubMed ID: 10823067 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Xie H; Zhang F; Wu Y; Chen C; Liu W Aust Dent J; 2008 Dec; 53(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 19133948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner. Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An in vitro microleakage study of the 'bonded-base' restorative technique. Yap AU; Mok BY; Pearson G J Oral Rehabil; 1997 Mar; 24(3):230-6. PubMed ID: 9131479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Microleakage of Class II composite restorations. Wibowo G; Stockton L Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):177-85. PubMed ID: 11572297 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Microleakage of adhesive restorative materials. Gladys S; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P; Vanherle G Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):170-6. PubMed ID: 11572296 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bond strengths of fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Fruits TJ; Duncanson MG; Miller RC Am J Dent; 1996 Oct; 9(5):219-22. PubMed ID: 9545909 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. In vitro caries inhibition effects by conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Tam LE; Chan GP; Yim D Oper Dent; 1997; 22(1):4-14. PubMed ID: 9227122 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An in-vitro investigation into the sealing ability of two fourth generation dentine bonding agents and two resin modified glass polyalkenoate restoratives. Quinn F Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 1995 Mar; 3(3):119-25. PubMed ID: 8603154 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]