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.
3. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Frankenberger R Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):60D-76D. PubMed ID: 11763920 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Esthetic posterior restorations utilizing the double-inlay technique: a novel approach in esthetic dentistry. Hannig M; Schmeiser R Quintessence Int; 1997 Feb; 28(2):79-83. PubMed ID: 10332359 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior. Frankenberger R; Petschelt A; Krämer N Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Ceramic inlays and onlays]. van Pelt AW; de Kloet HJ; van der Kuy P Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1996 Nov; 103(11):472-6. PubMed ID: 11921995 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Longevity of ceramic inlays and onlays luted with a solely light-curing composite resin. Schulte AG; Vöckler A; Reinhardt R J Dent; 2005 May; 33(5):433-42. PubMed ID: 15833400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Krämer N; Frankenberger R Dent Mater; 2005 Mar; 21(3):262-71. PubMed ID: 15705433 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays. Frankenberger R; Reinelt C; Petschelt A; Krämer N Dent Mater; 2009 Aug; 25(8):960-8. PubMed ID: 19344946 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Esthetic inlays and onlays. Jackson RD Curr Opin Cosmet Dent; 1994; ():30-9. PubMed ID: 8032438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Long-term clinical results of chairside Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays: a case series. Otto T; Schneider D Int J Prosthodont; 2008; 21(1):53-9. PubMed ID: 18350948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Posterior composite resin inlays and onlays: a comparison of available systems. Porter KH Tex Dent J; 1990 May; 107(5):9-11. PubMed ID: 2375001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Esthetic alternatives for posterior teeth: porcelain and laboratory-processed composite resins. Walton JN J Can Dent Assoc; 1992 Oct; 58(10):820-3. PubMed ID: 1393795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite Class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study. Ausiello P; Rengo S; Davidson CL; Watts DC Dent Mater; 2004 Nov; 20(9):862-72. PubMed ID: 15451242 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Utilization of ceromer inlays/onlays for replacement of amalgam restorations. Koczarski MJ Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent; 1998 May; 10(4):405-12; quiz 414. PubMed ID: 9655047 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Otto T; De Nisco S Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 11951800 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]