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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8803395)

  • 1. Gallium alloy restorations in primary teeth: a 12-month study.
    Kaga M; Nakajima H; Sakai T; Oguchi H
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1996 Aug; 127(8):1195-200. PubMed ID: 8803395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Gallium alloy versus high copper amalgam: a comparative evaluation of corrosion resistance and microleakage in the primary teeth.
    Munshi AK; Hegde AM; Bhaskar S
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2000; 24(4):315-9. PubMed ID: 11314418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of gallium alloy as a posterior restorative material.
    Navarro MF; Franco EB; Bastos PA; Teixeira LC; Carvalho RM
    Quintessence Int; 1996 May; 27(5):315-20. PubMed ID: 8941813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition.
    Yengopal V; Harneker SY; Patel N; Siegfried N
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2009 Apr; (2):CD004483. PubMed ID: 19370602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy.
    Kiremitci A; Bolay S
    J Oral Rehabil; 2003 Jun; 30(6):664-7. PubMed ID: 12787466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Gallium alloy.
    Mahler DB
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1996 Dec; 127(12):1700, 1702. PubMed ID: 8990734
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Direct-placement gallium restorative alloy: a 3-year clinical evaluation.
    Osborne JW; Summitt JB
    Quintessence Int; 1999 Jan; 30(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 10323158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars.
    Barr-Agholme M; Odén A; Dahllöf G; Modeér T
    Dent Mater; 1991 Oct; 7(4):230-3. PubMed ID: 1814768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative evaluation of clinical efficacy of gallium and amalgam alloys in primary molars.
    Singh R; Tandon S; Rakhee M
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2004 Jun; 22(2):68-72. PubMed ID: 15491089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars.
    Fuks AB; Araujo FB; Osorio LB; Hadani PE; Pinto AS
    Pediatr Dent; 2000; 22(6):479-85. PubMed ID: 11132507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Reliability of different techniques to assess marginal defects of Class II restorations in retrieved primary molars: a visual-tactile, SEM, dye penetration and polarized light microscopy study.
    Fuks AB; Araujo FB; Donly KJ; Cervantes M
    Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2002 Oct; 19(4):6-16, 67. PubMed ID: 12510251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Marginal adaptation and micro-porosity of class II restorations of a high copper amalgam and a palladium-free gallium-based alloy.
    Shaini FJ; Wahab FK; Ellakwa AE; Shortall AC; Fleming GJ; Marquis PM
    J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Dec; 33(12):924-33. PubMed ID: 17168935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Gallium: an alternative for amalgam?].
    Schuurs AH; Davidson CL
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1997 Apr; 104(4):142-5. PubMed ID: 11924385
    [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. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation.
    Marks LA; Weerheijm KL; van Amerongen WE; Groen HJ; Martens LC
    Caries Res; 1999; 33(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 10460963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 24-month results.
    dos Santos MP; Passos M; Luiz RR; Maia LC
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2009 Feb; 140(2):156-66; quiz 247-8. PubMed ID: 19188412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clinical evaluation and microstructural analysis of a direct placement gallium restorative alloy.
    Neo J; Chew CL; Osborne JW; Mahler DB
    J Dent; 2000 Feb; 28(2):123-9. PubMed ID: 10666970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.