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.
136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8152991)
1. Effect of grooves on resistance/retention form of Class 2 approximal slot amalgam restorations. Summitt JB; Osborne JW; Burgess JO Oper Dent; 1993; 18(5):209-13. PubMed ID: 8152991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of grooves on resistance form of Class 2 amalgams with wide occlusal preparations. Summitt JB; Osborne JW; Burgess JO; Howell ML Oper Dent; 1993; 18(2):42-7. PubMed ID: 8337180 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of grooves on resistance form of conservative Class 2 amalgams. Summitt JB; Howell ML; Burgess JO; Dutton FB; Osborne JW Oper Dent; 1992; 17(2):50-6. PubMed ID: 1437687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The effect of amalgam bonding on resistance form of Class II amalgam restorations. Della Bona A; Summitt JB Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 9643242 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Fracture resistance of Class II approximal slot restorations. Yaman SD; Yetmez M; Türköz E; Akkas N J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):297-302. PubMed ID: 11005902 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The strength of Class II composite resin restorations as affected by preparation design. Summitt JB; Della Bona A; Burgess JO Quintessence Int; 1994 Apr; 25(4):251-7. PubMed ID: 8058898 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Retention of Class 3 composite restorations: retention grooves versus enamel bonding. Summitt JB; Chan DC; Dutton FB Oper Dent; 1993; 18(3):88-93. PubMed ID: 8415168 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of preparation designs and adhesive systems on retention of class II amalgam restorations. Görücü J; Tiritoglu M; Ozgünaltay G J Prosthet Dent; 1997 Sep; 78(3):250-4. PubMed ID: 9297640 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of maxillary premolars with approximal slot cavities. el-Mowafy OM Oper Dent; 1993; 18(4):160-6. PubMed ID: 8152985 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of resistance features for complex amalgam restorations. Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Kaiser DA; Rux HW; Dutton FB Am J Dent; 1991 Dec; 4(6):268-72. PubMed ID: 1814348 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Fracture resistance of amalgam/glass-polyalkenoate open sandwich Class II restorations: an in vitro study. Roberts HW; Vandewalle KS; Charlton DG; Berzins DW J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):873-7. PubMed ID: 18692947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class II bonded amalgam and new tooth-colored restorations. Görücü J; Ozgünaltay G Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):501-7. PubMed ID: 14531594 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Martins LR; Soares CJ J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jan; 99(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 18182183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of bonded amalgam restorations on the fracture strength of teeth. Oliveira JP; Cochran MA; Moore BK Oper Dent; 1996; 21(3):110-5. PubMed ID: 9002870 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of a reinforced slot design for CEREC system to restore extensively compromised premolars. Lin CL; Chang YH; Chang WJ; Cheng MH J Dent; 2006 Mar; 34(3):221-9. PubMed ID: 16112335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]