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 *

437 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8268839)

  • 21. Secondary caries formation in vitro around fluoride-releasing restorations.
    Dionysopoulos P; Kotsanos N; Koliniotou-Koubia ; Papagodiannis Y
    Oper Dent; 1994; 19(5):183-8. PubMed ID: 8700758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations.
    Hickel R; Manhart J; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):41D-54D. PubMed ID: 11763918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: a 2-year clinical evaluation.
    de Araujo MA; Araújo RM; Marsilio AL
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):87-93. PubMed ID: 9643241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
    Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hinkel R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effect of light source position and bevel placement on facial margin adaptation of resin-based composite restorations.
    Hoelscher DC; Gregory WA; Linger JB; Pink FE
    Am J Dent; 2000 Aug; 13(4):171-5. PubMed ID: 11763925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Influence of the use of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation and surface treatment in microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations.
    Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Borsatto MC; Pécora JD; Palma-Dibb RG
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(4):430-6. PubMed ID: 15279483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Surface texture and enamel-restoration interface of glass ionomer restorations.
    Sepet E; Aytepe Z; Oray H
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1997; 21(3):231-5. PubMed ID: 9484132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities.
    Rahimtoola S; van Amerongen E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 2002; 69(1):16-26, 11. PubMed ID: 12119808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Marginal morphology of Class V composite restorations.
    Prati C; Chersoni S; Cretti L; Mongiorgi R
    Am J Dent; 1997 Oct; 10(5):231-6. PubMed ID: 9522697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
    Yip HK; Smales RJ; Yu C; Gao XJ; Deng DM
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Jan; 33(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 11887531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer tunnel restorations in primary molars: 36 months results.
    Markovic D; Peric T
    Aust Dent J; 2008 Mar; 53(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 18304240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparative quantitative and qualitative assessment of the marginal adaptation and apposition of bonded amalgam restorations using luting glass ionomer and 4-META adhesive liner under a scanning electron microscope. An in vitro study.
    Abraham MM; Sudeep PT; Bhat KS
    Indian J Dent Res; 1999; 10(2):43-53. PubMed ID: 10865391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The use of liners under amalgam restorations: an in vitro study on marginal leakage.
    Marchiori S; Baratieri LN; de Andrada MA; Monteiro Júnior S; Ritter AV
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Oct; 29(10):637-42. PubMed ID: 9922761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgam restorations in primary molars.
    Hickel R; Voss A
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1990; 57(3):184-8. PubMed ID: 2111833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Reinforced glass ionomer restorations in modified Class II cavities].
    Valenzuela V; Stanke F
    Odontol Chil; 1989 Apr; 37(1):209-13. PubMed ID: 2518367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Compressive fracture resistance of the marginal ridge in large Class II tunnels restored with cermet and composite resin.
    Ehrnford LE; Fransson H
    Swed Dent J; 1994; 18(5):207-11. PubMed ID: 7871480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Marginal ridge strength in Class II tunnel restorations.
    Fasbinder DJ; Davis RD; Burgess JO
    Am J Dent; 1991 Apr; 4(2):77-82. PubMed ID: 1854444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.