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.
6. 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]
7. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1. Hilton TJ Am J Dent; 2002 Jun; 15(3):198-210. PubMed ID: 12469759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The best of both worlds: combining metal and ceromer for clinical success. Martin J; LeBeau S Dent Today; 2000 Jul; 19(7):88-9. PubMed ID: 12524824 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner. Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Alternatives to amalgam. Lyons K N Z Dent J; 1997 Jun; 93(412):47-50. PubMed ID: 9293745 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The effects of cavity preparation and lamination on bond strength and fracture of tooth-colored restorations in primary molars. Suwatviroj P; Messer LB; Palamara JE Pediatr Dent; 2003; 25(6):534-40. PubMed ID: 14733466 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Therapy of Class V cavities]. Meissner M; Beetke E Stomatol DDR; 1990 Jul; 40(7):290-3. PubMed ID: 2270601 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparative quantitative and qualitative assessment of the marginal adaptation and apposition of bonded amalgam restorations using luting glass ionomer and 4-META adhesive liner under a scanning electron microscope. An in vitro study. Abraham MM; Sudeep PT; Bhat KS Indian J Dent Res; 1999; 10(2):43-53. PubMed ID: 10865391 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Glass-ionomer cements as base material and dental bonding]. Blok C Tandlaegebladet; 1992 Mar; 96(5):206-14. PubMed ID: 1412038 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Factors influencing dentists' choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients. Vidnes-Kopperud S; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I Acta Odontol Scand; 2009; 67(2):74-9. PubMed ID: 19085213 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Effect of gap size and cement type on gingival microleakage in Class V resin composite inlays. Browning WD; Safirstein J Quintessence Int; 1997 Aug; 28(8):541-4. PubMed ID: 9477882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]