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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8700764)

  • 1. The effect of setting time on the clinical performance of a high-copper amalgam alloy.
    Osborne JW; Berry TG
    Oper Dent; 1995; 20(1):26-9. PubMed ID: 8700764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical evaluation of high-copper amalgams.
    Berry TG; Osborne JS; Summitt JB
    Am J Dent; 1995 Jun; 8(3):122-4. PubMed ID: 8599586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of pulp protection technique on the clinical performance of amalgam restorations: three-year results.
    Baratieri LN; Machado A; Van Noort R; Ritter AV; Baratieri NM
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 12120767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months.
    Gao W; Peng D; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jan; 34(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 12674356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of admixed indium on the clinical success of amalgam restorations.
    Johnson GH; Bales DJ; Powell LV
    Oper Dent; 1992; 17(5):196-202. PubMed ID: 1289867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A 14-year clinical assessment of 12 amalgam alloys.
    Osborne JW; Norman RD; Gale EN
    Quintessence Int; 1991 Nov; 22(11):857-64. PubMed ID: 1812507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Early fracture resistance of amalgapin-retained complex amalgam restorations.
    Schulte GA; Hermesch CB; Vandewalle KS; Buikema DJ
    Oper Dent; 1998; 23(3):108-12. PubMed ID: 9656920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Time-dependent corrosion potential of newly-placed admixed dental amalgam restorations.
    Sutow EJ; Maillet WA; Taylor JC; Hall GC; Millar M
    Dent Mater; 2007 May; 23(5):644-7. PubMed ID: 16901535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of four dental amalgams over a two year period.
    van der Merwe WJ
    J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1992 Dec; 47(12):521-5. PubMed ID: 9511639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Handling characteristics of a gallium alloy triturated with alcohol.
    Mash LK; Miller BH; Nakajima H; Guo IY; Okabe T
    Am J Dent; 1997 Aug; 10(4):199-202. PubMed ID: 9590909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Lindemuth JS; Hagge MS; Broome JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 11203813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of high-copper dental amalgams with and without admixed indium.
    Johnson GH; Bales DJ; Powell LV
    Am J Dent; 1992 Feb; 5(1):39-41. PubMed ID: 1524741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Corrosion sealing of amalgam restorations in vitro.
    Mahler DB; Pham BV; Adey JD
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):312-20. PubMed ID: 19544821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Longevity of low- and high-copper amalgams analyzed by preparation class, tooth site, patient age, and operator.
    Smales RJ
    Oper Dent; 1991; 16(5):162-8. PubMed ID: 1813870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical evaluation of three amalgam alloys.
    Tyas MJ; Ewers GJ
    Aust Dent J; 1993 Jun; 38(3):225-8. PubMed ID: 8373297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 2-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy.
    Osborne JW; Summitt JB
    Am J Dent; 1996 Oct; 9(5):191-4. PubMed ID: 9545902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Long-term monitoring of microleakage of different amalgams with different liners.
    Gallato A; Angnes G; Reis A; Loguercio AD
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):571-6. PubMed ID: 15942619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.