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.
8. Time required for placement of composite versus amalgam restorations. Dilley DC; Vann WF; Oldenburg TR; Crisp RM ASDC J Dent Child; 1990; 57(3):177-83. PubMed ID: 2345211 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal of all amalgam restorations: the effect of using rubber dams. Berglund A; Molin M Dent Mater; 1997 Sep; 13(5):297-304. PubMed ID: 9823089 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up. Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners. Lynch CD; McConnell RJ Int Endod J; 2007 Jun; 40(6):427-32. PubMed ID: 17501755 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Should a rubber dam be used with composite restorations?]. Roeters FJ Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1999 Aug; 106(8):311. PubMed ID: 12138863 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Composite resin support of undermined enamel in amalgam restorations. Eidelman E Pediatr Dent; 1999; 21(2):118-20. PubMed ID: 10197337 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of enamel-bonding, type of restoration, patient age and operator on the longevity of an anterior composite resin. Smales RJ Am J Dent; 1991 Jun; 4(3):130-3. PubMed ID: 1830747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of Isolation Method of the Operative Field on Gingival Damage, Patients' Preference, and Restoration Retention in Noncarious Cervical Lesions. Loguercio AD; Luque-Martinez I; Lisboa AH; Higashi C; Queiroz VA; Rego RO; Reis A Oper Dent; 2015; 40(6):581-93. PubMed ID: 26158415 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. Donly KJ; Segura A; Kanellis M; Erickson RL J Am Dent Assoc; 1999 Oct; 130(10):1459-66. PubMed ID: 10570589 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 'Rubber dam usage related to restoration quality and survival'. Mair LH Br Dent J; 1993 Jun; 174(11):397. PubMed ID: 8347223 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of rubber-dam on the reconstruction of proximal contacts with adhesive tooth-colored restorations. Dörfer CE; Schriever A; Heidemann D; Staehle HJ; Pioch T J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):169-75. PubMed ID: 11570685 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Attitudes of final year dental students to the use of rubber dam. Mala S; Lynch CD; Burke FM; Dummer PM Int Endod J; 2009 Jul; 42(7):632-8. PubMed ID: 19467044 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Smales RJ; Webster DA Oper Dent; 1993; 18(4):130-7. PubMed ID: 8152980 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]