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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8498164)

  • 1. Cusp fracture of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Teeth restored in Denmark before 1975 versus after 1979.
    Hansen EK; Asmussen E
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1993 Apr; 51(2):73-7. PubMed ID: 8498164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with enamel-bonded resin.
    Hansen EK; Asmussen E
    Endod Dent Traumatol; 1990 Oct; 6(5):218-25. PubMed ID: 2133313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam.
    Hansen EK; Asmussen E; Christiansen NC
    Endod Dent Traumatol; 1990 Apr; 6(2):49-55. PubMed ID: 2132209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Influence of coronal restorations on the fracture resistance of root canal-treated premolar and molar teeth: a retrospective study.
    Dammaschke T; Nykiel K; Sagheri D; Schäfer E
    Aust Endod J; 2013 Aug; 39(2):48-56. PubMed ID: 23890259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of amalgam bonding on the stiffness of teeth weakened by cavity preparation.
    Zidan O; Abdel-Keriem U
    Dent Mater; 2003 Nov; 19(7):680-5. PubMed ID: 12901995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars.
    Cobankara FK; Unlu N; Cetin AR; Ozkan HB
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):526-33. PubMed ID: 18833859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars restored with bonded amalgam.
    el-Badrawy WA
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(6):337-43. PubMed ID: 10823082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In Vitro Fracture Resistance of Adhesively Restored Molar Teeth with Different MOD Cavity Dimensions.
    Forster A; Braunitzer G; Tóth M; Szabó BP; Fráter M
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e325-e331. PubMed ID: 29508474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Prevalence of cusp fractures in teeth restored with amalgam and with resin-based composite.
    Wahl MJ; Schmitt MM; Overton DA; Gordon MK
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2004 Aug; 135(8):1127-32; quiz 1164-5. PubMed ID: 15387051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays.
    Hannig C; Westphal C; Becker K; Attin T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Oct; 94(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 16198171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Vertical root fracture in endodontically treated teeth: a review of 25 cases.
    Llena-Puy MC; Forner-Navarro L; Barbero-Navarro I
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Nov; 92(5):553-5. PubMed ID: 11709692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of composite restorations on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth.
    Joynt RB; Wieczkowski G; Klockowski R; Davis EL
    J Prosthet Dent; 1987 Apr; 57(4):431-5. PubMed ID: 3471955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Strain measurements and fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with all-ceramic restorations.
    Seow LL; Toh CG; Wilson NH
    J Dent; 2015 Jan; 43(1):126-32. PubMed ID: 25448436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fracture resistance of endodontically prepared teeth using various restorative materials.
    Oliveira Fde C; Denehy GE; Boyer DB
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1987 Jul; 115(1):57-60. PubMed ID: 3475370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cuspal reinforcement in endodontically treated molars.
    Uyehara MY; Davis RD; Overton JD
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(6):364-70. PubMed ID: 10823086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of restorative procedures on the strength of endodontically treated molars.
    Linn J; Messer HH
    J Endod; 1994 Oct; 20(10):479-85. PubMed ID: 7714419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. In vivo cusp fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with MOD amalgam or MOD resin fillings.
    Hansen EK
    Dent Mater; 1988 Aug; 4(4):169-73. PubMed ID: 3251803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Assessment of the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated molars restored with amalgam.
    Assif D; Nissan J; Gafni Y; Gordon M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 May; 89(5):462-5. PubMed ID: 12806323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.