195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9028246)
21. Comparison of antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer cement and amalgam in class two restorations by Streptococcus mutans count analysis at fixed intervals: an in vivo study.
Tegginmani VS; Goel B; Uppin V; Horatti P; Kumar LS; Nainani A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 May; 14(3):381-6. PubMed ID: 24171977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Effect of adhesives on the inhibition of secondary caries around compomer restorations.
Itota T; Nakabo S; Iwai Y; Konishi N; Nagamine M; Torii Y; Yoshiyama M
Oper Dent; 2001; 26(5):445-50. PubMed ID: 11551008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Dental materials for the restoration of root surface caries.
Burgess JO
Am J Dent; 1995 Dec; 8(6):342-51. PubMed ID: 8695014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Secondary caries related to various marginal gaps around amalgam restorations in vitro.
Dérand T; Birkhed D; Edwardsson S
Swed Dent J; 1991; 15(3):133-8. PubMed ID: 1876980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Lesions in vitro associated with a Fl-containing amalgam and a stannous fluoride solution.
Dionysopoulos P; Kotsanos N; Papadogiannis Y
Oper Dent; 1990; 15(5):178-85. PubMed ID: 2098727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results.
Qvist V; Laurberg L; Poulsen A; Teglers PT
J Dent Res; 1997 Jul; 76(7):1387-96. PubMed ID: 9207772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials--fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation.
Wiegand A; Buchalla W; Attin T
Dent Mater; 2007 Mar; 23(3):343-62. PubMed ID: 16616773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparative study of plaque mutans streptococci levels in children receiving glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
Ertuğrul F; Eltem R; Eronat C
J Dent Child (Chic); 2003; 70(1):10-4. PubMed ID: 12762601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. In vitro evaluation of secondary caries development in enamel and root dentin around luted metallic restoration.
Shinkai RS; Cury AA; Cury JA
Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):52-9. PubMed ID: 11203778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. In vitro enamel caries formation and orthodontic bonding agents.
Cain K; Hicks J; English J; Flaitz C; Powers JM; Rives T
Am J Dent; 2006 Jun; 19(3):187-92. PubMed ID: 16838485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Fluoride-releasing sealant and caries-like enamel lesion formation in vitro.
Hicks MJ; Flaitz CM; Garcia-Godoy F
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2000; 24(3):215-9. PubMed ID: 11314146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and fluoride-releasing resin composite.
Wilson RM; Donly KJ
Pediatr Dent; 2001; 23(3):255-9. PubMed ID: 11447960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Partial caries removal and cariostatic materials in carious primary molar teeth: a randomised controlled clinical trial.
Foley J; Evans D; Blackwell A
Br Dent J; 2004 Dec; 197(11):697-701; discussion 689. PubMed ID: 15592552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Streptococcus mutans-induced secondary caries adjacent to glass ionomer cement, composite resin and amalgam restorations in vitro.
Gama-Teixeira A; Simionato MR; Elian SN; Sobral MA; Luz MA
Braz Oral Res; 2007; 21(4):368-74. PubMed ID: 18060266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) and silver amalgam restorations in the treatment of Class 5 caries in xerostomic head and neck cancer patients.
Wood RE; Maxymiw WG; McComb D
Oper Dent; 1993; 18(3):94-102. PubMed ID: 8415169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Ability of different restorative materials to prevent in situ secondary caries: analysis by polarized light-microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray.
Paradella TC; Koga-Ito CY; Jorge AO
Eur J Oral Sci; 2008 Aug; 116(4):375-80. PubMed ID: 18705806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Fluoride-releasing dental restorative materials.
Eichmiller FC; Marjenhoff WA
Oper Dent; 1998; 23(5):218-28. PubMed ID: 9863442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Effect of luting cement on dental biofilm composition and secondary caries around metallic restorations in situ.
Moura JS; Lima EM; Paes Leme AF; Del Bel Cury AA; Tabchoury CP; Cury JA
Oper Dent; 2004; 29(5):509-14. PubMed ID: 15470872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
