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 *

221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8089348)

  • 1. Radiographic assessments of Class II resin composite inlays.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Borgmeijer PJ; Akerboom HB; Gruythuysen RJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1994; 61(3):192-8. PubMed ID: 8089348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of occlusal marginal adaptation of Class II resin composite inlays.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Borgmeijer PJ; Gruythuysen RJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1994; 61(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 8182195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of occlusal marginal adaptation of Class II resin-composite restorations.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Borgmeijer PJ; Gruythuysen RJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1993; 60(4-5):310-4. PubMed ID: 8258575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Radiographic assessments of Class II resin composite restorations in a clinical study: baseline results.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Borgmeijer PJ; Gruythuysen RJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1992; 59(2):97-107. PubMed ID: 1583203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Prevalence of postoperative sensitivity with indirect Class II resin composite inlays.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Gruythuysen RJ; Borgmeijer PJ; Akerboom HB
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1993; 60(2):95-8. PubMed ID: 8486862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and low-viscosity composite.
    de Andrade OS; de Goes MF; Montes MA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Mar; 23(3):279-87. PubMed ID: 16546249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Composite resin-amalgam compound restorations.
    Franchi M; Trisi P; Montanari G; Piattelli A
    Quintessence Int; 1994 Aug; 25(8):577-82. PubMed ID: 7568708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Marginal seal comparisons between resin-bonded Class II porcelain inlays, posterior composite restorations, and direct composite resin inlays.
    Shortall AC; Baylis RL; Baylis MA; Grundy JR
    Int J Prosthodont; 1989; 2(3):217-23. PubMed ID: 2699418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Marginal adaptation and seal of direct and indirect Class II composite resin restorations: an in vitro evaluation.
    Dietschi D; Scampa U; Campanile G; Holz J
    Quintessence Int; 1995 Feb; 26(2):127-38. PubMed ID: 7568723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Occlusal glass ionomer cermet, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations: a 2-year clinical study.
    Lidums A; Wilkie R; Smales R
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 7803005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Manhart J; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11005901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.
    Huth KC; Chen HY; Mehl A; Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Dent; 2011 Jul; 39(7):478-88. PubMed ID: 21554920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations.
    Olmez A; Oztas N; Bodur H
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(6):713-9. PubMed ID: 15646229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of microleakage between direct placement technics and direct inlay technics.
    Yanikoğlu F; Scherer W
    J Marmara Univ Dent Fac; 1990 Sep; 1(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 2129915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Microleakage of class 2 Superbond-lined composite restorations with and without a cervical amalgam base.
    Hovav S; Holan G; Lewinstein I; Fuks AB
    Oper Dent; 1995; 20(2):63-7. PubMed ID: 8700773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhesives.
    Uludag B; Ozturk O; Ozturk AN
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Oct; 102(4):235-41. PubMed ID: 19782826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.