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 *

260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8941813)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Two-year clinical evaluation of Dyract in small Class I cavities.
    Demirci M; Uçok M
    Am J Dent; 2002 Oct; 15(5):312-6. PubMed ID: 12537341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months.
    Holan G; Chosack A; Eidelman E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1996; 63(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 8958346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [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]  

  • 25. Cervical compomer restorations: the role of cavity etching in a 48-month clinical evaluation.
    Di Lenarda R; Cadenaro M; De Stefano Dorigo E
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):382-7. PubMed ID: 11203846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A pilot study of the marginal adaptation and surface morphology of glass-cermet cements.
    Chu CH; King NM; Lee AM; Yiu CK; Wei SH
    Quintessence Int; 1996 Jul; 27(7):493-501. PubMed ID: 8941827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations.
    Sarrett DC
    Dent Mater; 2005 Jan; 21(1):9-20. PubMed ID: 15680997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results.
    Pascon FM; Kantovitz KR; Caldo-Teixeira AS; Borges AF; Silva TN; Puppin-Rontani RM; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Dent; 2006 Jul; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study.
    Papagiannoulis L; Kakaboura A; Pantaleon F; Kavvadia K
    Pediatr Dent; 1999; 21(4):231-4. PubMed ID: 10436476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A 3-year follow-up study of preformed beta-quartz glass-ceramic insert restorations.
    Sjögren G; Hedlund SO; Jonsson C; Sandström A
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Jan; 31(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 11203902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Dental post-operative sensitivity associated with a gallium-based restorative material.
    Dunne SM; Abraham R
    Br Dent J; 2000 Sep; 189(6):310-3. PubMed ID: 11060951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R; Santiago SL; Mendonça JS; Passos VF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
    Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Two-year performance of glass-ceramic insert-resin composite restorations: clinical and scanning electron microscopic evaluation.
    Kiremitçi A; Bolay S; Gürgan S
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Jul; 29(7):417-21. PubMed ID: 9759057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.