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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8602435)

  • 21. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Strain profiles in molars restored with posterior composite resins: effect of cavity size & restorative technique.
    Kamel FM; Bides MW; Leinfelder KF
    Egypt Dent J; 1995 Jul; 41(3):1327-33. PubMed ID: 9497677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite.
    Hürmüzlü F; Kiremitçi A; Serper A; Altundaşar E; Siso SH
    J Endod; 2003 Dec; 29(12):838-40. PubMed ID: 14686819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars.
    Steele A; Johnson BR
    J Endod; 1999 Jan; 25(1):6-8. PubMed ID: 10196835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.
    Sengun A; Cobankara FK; Orucoglu H
    Dent Traumatol; 2008 Apr; 24(2):214-9. PubMed ID: 18352927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Re-attachment of anterior fractured teeth: fracture strength using different materials.
    Reis A; Kraul A; Francci C; de Assis TG; Crivelli DD; Oda M; Loguercio AD
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(6):621-7. PubMed ID: 12413229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Marginal ridge strength of Class II tunnel restorations.
    Purk JH; Roberts RS; Elledge DA; Chappell RP; Eick JD
    Am J Dent; 1995 Apr; 8(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 7546482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effect of three direct restorative materials on molar cuspal fracture resistance.
    Allara FW; Diefenderfer KE; Molinaro JD
    Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):228-32. PubMed ID: 15478480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
    Yamada Y; Tsubota Y; Fukushima S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 15008239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. On material choice and fracture susceptibility of restored teeth: an asymptotic stress analysis approach.
    Kahler B; Kotousov A; Melkoumian N
    Dent Mater; 2006 Dec; 22(12):1109-14. PubMed ID: 16375962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of cyclical lateral forces on microleakage in cervical resin composite restorations.
    Fruits TJ; VanBrunt CL; Khajotia SS; Duncanson MG
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Mar; 33(3):205-12. PubMed ID: 11921769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Microleakage of a new improved glass ionomer restorative material in primary and permanent teeth.
    Castro A; Feigal RE
    Pediatr Dent; 2002; 24(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 11874054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of bonded composites vs. amalgam on resistance to cuspal deflection for endodontically-treated premolar teeth.
    Cerutti A; Flocchini P; Madini L; Mangani F; Putignano A; Docchio F
    Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):295-300. PubMed ID: 15478495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effect of laser pretreated enamel and dentin of primary teeth on microleakage of different restorative materials.
    Salama FS
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1998; 22(4):285-91. PubMed ID: 9796497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Fatigue load of teeth restored with bonded direct composite and indirect ceramic inlays in MOD class II cavity preparations.
    Shor A; Nicholls JI; Phillips KM; Libman WJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 12675458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites.
    Palin WM; Fleming GJ; Nathwani H; Burke FJ; Randall RC
    Dent Mater; 2005 Apr; 21(4):324-35. PubMed ID: 15766579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Shear bond strength of composite resin and amalgam adhesive systems to dentin.
    Evans DB; Neme AM
    Am J Dent; 1999 Feb; 12(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 10477994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner.
    Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Fracture resistance of five pin-retained core build-up materials on teeth with and without extracoronal preparation.
    Burke FJ; Shaglouf AG; Combe EC; Wilson NH
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 11203847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Fracture strength of restored premolars.
    Camacho GB; Gonçalves M; Nonaka T; Osório AB
    Am J Dent; 2007 Apr; 20(2):121-4. PubMed ID: 17542207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.