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.
3. Marginal ridge strength in Class II tunnel restorations. Fasbinder DJ; Davis RD; Burgess JO Am J Dent; 1991 Apr; 4(2):77-82. PubMed ID: 1854444 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Microleakage of Class II silver glass ionomer/composite restorations. Stratmann RG; Donly KJ Am J Dent; 1991 Apr; 4(2):95-8. PubMed ID: 1906718 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing. Magni E; Zhang L; Hickel R; Bossù M; Polimeni A; Ferrari M J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 18757129 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Microleakage of a new improved glass ionomer restorative material in primary and permanent teeth. Castro A; Feigal RE Pediatr Dent; 2002; 24(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 11874054 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Glass ionomer-silver cermet Class II tunnel-restorations for primary molars. Croll TP ASDC J Dent Child; 1988; 55(3):177-82. PubMed ID: 2968382 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years. Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth. Qualtrough AJ; Cawte SG; Wilson NH Oper Dent; 2001; 26(3):267-72. PubMed ID: 11357569 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Marginal ridge strength of teeth with tunnel preparations. Strand GV; Tveit AB; Gjerdet NR; Eide GE Int Dent J; 1995 Apr; 45(2):117-23. PubMed ID: 7558348 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An in vitro assessment of cavity margin finishing and marginal adaptation of tunnel restorations. Chalker SA; Lumley PJ Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 1993 Jun; 1(4):151-6. PubMed ID: 8268839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. Payne JH J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 10204453 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Marginal ridge strength of Class II tunnel restorations. Purk JH; Roberts RS; Elledge DA; Chappell RP; Eick JD Am J Dent; 1995 Apr; 8(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 7546482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Abd El Halim S; Zaki D Oper Dent; 2011; 36(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 21488727 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Compressive fracture resistance of the marginal ridge in large Class II tunnels restored with cermet and composite resin. Ehrnford LE; Fransson H Swed Dent J; 1994; 18(5):207-11. PubMed ID: 7871480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The use of liners under amalgam restorations: an in vitro study on marginal leakage. Marchiori S; Baratieri LN; de Andrada MA; Monteiro Júnior S; Ritter AV Quintessence Int; 1998 Oct; 29(10):637-42. PubMed ID: 9922761 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Xie H; Zhang F; Wu Y; Chen C; Liu W Aust Dent J; 2008 Dec; 53(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 19133948 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: a comparison of three in vitro procedures. al-Obaidi FF; Salama FS J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1996; 21(1):71-6. PubMed ID: 9161211 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Tunnel restorations. A 3 1/2-year follow up study of Class I and II tunnel restorations in permanent and primary teeth. Hasselrot L Swed Dent J; 1993; 17(5):173-82. PubMed ID: 8291027 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]