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 *

193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9083578)

  • 61. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation.
    Croll TP; Bar-Zion Y; Segura A; Donly KJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Aug; 132(8):1110-6. PubMed ID: 11575018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Reasons for replacement of Class II amalgam restorations in private practice.
    Allander L; Birkhed D; Bratthall D
    Swed Dent J; 1990; 14(4):179-84. PubMed ID: 2255996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Recreating Mother Nature with direct resin restorations.
    Nazarian A
    Dent Today; 2009 Apr; 28(4):82, 84. PubMed ID: 19408587
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. A clinical study of the "open sandwich" technique in pediatric dental practice.
    Cannon ML
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2003; 70(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 12762613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years.
    Taifour D; Frencken JE; Beiruti N; van 't Hof MA; Truin GJ
    Caries Res; 2002; 36(6):437-44. PubMed ID: 12459617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Placement and replacement rates of amalgam and composite restorations on posterior teeth in a military population.
    Owen BD; Guevara PH; Greenwood W
    US Army Med Dep J; 2017; (2-17):88-94. PubMed ID: 28853125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. 18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base.
    van de Sande FH; Rodolpho PA; Basso GR; Patias R; da Rosa QF; Demarco FF; Opdam NJ; Cenci MS
    Dent Mater; 2015 Jun; 31(6):669-75. PubMed ID: 25863523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.
    Bernardo M; Luis H; Martin MD; Leroux BG; Rue T; Leitão J; DeRouen TA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):775-83. PubMed ID: 17545266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland.
    Forss H; Widström E
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2001 Apr; 59(2):57-62. PubMed ID: 11370750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. 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]  

  • 71. Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice.
    Mjör IA; Moorhead JE; Dahl JE
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1999 Oct; 57(5):257-62. PubMed ID: 10614902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Cross-sectional radiographic survey of amalgam and resin-based composite posterior restorations.
    Levin L; Coval M; Geiger SB
    Quintessence Int; 2007 Jun; 38(6):511-4. PubMed ID: 17625635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the north west region of England to restore the primary dentition.
    Milsom KM; Tickle M; Blinkhorn A
    J Dent; 2002; 30(2-3):77-82. PubMed ID: 12381406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Comparison of wear and clinical performance between amalgam, composite and open sandwich restorations: 2-year results.
    Sachdeo A; Gray GB; Sulieman MA; Jagger DC
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2004 Mar; 12(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 15058177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Treatment of proximal caries lesions by tunnel restorations.
    Wiegand A; Attin T
    Dent Mater; 2007 Dec; 23(12):1461-7. PubMed ID: 17320944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations.
    Mjör IA; Qvist V
    J Dent; 1997 Jan; 25(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 9080736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Survey of amalgam and composite restorations in Korea.
    Mjör IA; Um CM
    Int Dent J; 1993 Aug; 43(4):311-6. PubMed ID: 8276514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. The influence of approximal restoration extension on the development of secondary caries.
    Kuper NK; Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Huysmans MC
    J Dent; 2012 Mar; 40(3):241-7. PubMed ID: 22226997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students.
    Naghipur S; Pesun I; Nowakowski A; Kim A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):336-9. PubMed ID: 27086110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.