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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9297640)

  • 1. Effects of preparation designs and adhesive systems on retention of class II amalgam restorations.
    Görücü J; Tiritoglu M; Ozgünaltay G
    J Prosthet Dent; 1997 Sep; 78(3):250-4. PubMed ID: 9297640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of amalgam bonding on resistance form of Class II amalgam restorations.
    Della Bona A; Summitt JB
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 9643242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Revisiting amalgam: a comparative study between bonded amalgam restoration and amalgam retained with undercuts.
    Gupta I; Gupta S; Kothari A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2011 May; 12(3):164-70. PubMed ID: 22186810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The strength of Class II composite resin restorations as affected by preparation design.
    Summitt JB; Della Bona A; Burgess JO
    Quintessence Int; 1994 Apr; 25(4):251-7. PubMed ID: 8058898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of grooves on resistance/retention form of Class 2 approximal slot amalgam restorations.
    Summitt JB; Osborne JW; Burgess JO
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(5):209-13. PubMed ID: 8152991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of grooves on resistance form of Class 2 amalgams with wide occlusal preparations.
    Summitt JB; Osborne JW; Burgess JO; Howell ML
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(2):42-7. PubMed ID: 8337180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fracture resistance of Class II approximal slot restorations.
    Yaman SD; Yetmez M; Türköz E; Akkas N
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):297-302. PubMed ID: 11005902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Lindemuth JS; Hagge MS; Broome JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 11203813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive agents with dye under vacuum: an in vitro study.
    Parolia A; Kundabala M; Gupta V; Verma M; Batra C; Shenoy R; Srikant N
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):252-5. PubMed ID: 21891895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Amalgam bonding: visualization and clinical implications of adhesive displacement during amalgam condensation.
    Tyler DW; Thurmeier J
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11203781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Proximal Contact Repair of Complex Amalgam Restorations.
    Zguri MN; Casey JA; Jessup JP; Vandewalle KS
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(3):266-272. PubMed ID: 28080293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Influence of bonded amalgam restorations on the fracture strength of teeth.
    Oliveira JP; Cochran MA; Moore BK
    Oper Dent; 1996; 21(3):110-5. PubMed ID: 9002870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Effect of grooves on resistance form of conservative Class 2 amalgams.
    Summitt JB; Howell ML; Burgess JO; Dutton FB; Osborne JW
    Oper Dent; 1992; 17(2):50-6. PubMed ID: 1437687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Retentive strength of an amalgam bonding agent: chemical vs light vs dual curing.
    Winkler MM; Rhodes B; Moore BK
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):505-11. PubMed ID: 11203863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fracture resistance of four different restorations for cuspal replacement.
    Segura A; Riggins R
    J Oral Rehabil; 1999 Dec; 26(12):928-31. PubMed ID: 10620155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations: effect of thermal cycling.
    Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M; Theodoridou-Pahini S; Papadogiannis Y; Karezis A
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):316-23. PubMed ID: 11203837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of retentiveness of amalgam bonding agent types.
    Winkler MM; Moore BK; Allen J; Rhodes B
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(5):200-8. PubMed ID: 9484142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Mechanical retention versus bonding of amalgam and gallium alloy restorations.
    Eakle WS; Staninec M; Yip RL; Chavez MA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1994 Oct; 72(4):351-4. PubMed ID: 7990038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.