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)

  • 21. Fracture resistance of complex amalgam restorations.
    Burgess JO; Alvarez A; Summitt JB
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(3):128-32. PubMed ID: 9484151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars.
    Cobankara FK; Unlu N; Cetin AR; Ozkan HB
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):526-33. PubMed ID: 18833859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Support of undermined occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials.
    Latino C; Troendle K; Summitt JB
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):287-91. PubMed ID: 12066648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Fatigue of resin-bonded amalgam restorations.
    Bonilla E; White SN
    Oper Dent; 1996; 21(3):122-6. PubMed ID: 9011846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Fracture resistance of amalgam/glass-polyalkenoate open sandwich Class II restorations: an in vitro study.
    Roberts HW; Vandewalle KS; Charlton DG; Berzins DW
    J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):873-7. PubMed ID: 18692947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
    Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Setcos JC; Staninec M; Wilson NH
    J Adhes Dent; 1999; 1(4):323-31. PubMed ID: 11725662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Microleakage and retention of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Winkler MM; Moore BK; Rhodes B; Swartz M
    Am J Dent; 2000 Oct; 13(5):245-50. PubMed ID: 11764110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Retention of complex amalgam restorations using self-threading pins, amalgapins, and Amalgambond.
    Imbery TA; Hilton TJ; Reagan SE
    Am J Dent; 1995 Jun; 8(3):117-21. PubMed ID: 8599585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Fracture strength of Class I versus Class II restored premolars tested at the marginal ridge. 2. Cavosurface bonding and cavosurface plus internal enamel bonding.
    Purk JH; Eick JD; Roberts M; Chappell RP; Moore DL
    Quintessence Int; 1990 Aug; 21(8):655-62. PubMed ID: 2094870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The performance of bonded vs. pin-retained complex amalgam restorations: a five-year clinical evaluation.
    Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Berry TG; Robbins JW; Osborne JW; Haveman CW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Jul; 132(7):923-31. PubMed ID: 11480646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. In vivo and in vitro evaluations of microleakage around Class I amalgam and composite restorations.
    Alptekin T; Ozer F; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N; Blatz MB
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):641-8. PubMed ID: 21180003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage.
    Coelho-De-Souza FH; Camacho GB; Demarco FF; Powers JM
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 18335731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The influence of resin composite and bonded amalgam restorations on dentine permeability in Class II cavities in vitro.
    Ozok AR; De Gee AJ; Wu MK; Wesselink PR
    Dent Mater; 2001 Nov; 17(6):477-84. PubMed ID: 11567684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Amalgam retention using pins, boxes, and Amalgambond.
    Fischer GM; Stewart GP; Panelli J
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):173-5. PubMed ID: 7803002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Composite Replacement of Amalgam Restoration Versus Freshly Cut Dentin: An In Vitro Microleakage Comparison.
    Redwan H; Bardwell DN; Ali A; Finkelman M; Khayat S; Weber HP
    Oper Dent; 2016; 41(3):E73-82. PubMed ID: 26918923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Amalgam type, adhesive system, and storage period as influencing factors on microleakage of amalgam restorations.
    Ziskind D; Venezia E; Kreisman I; Mass E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Sep; 90(3):255-60. PubMed ID: 12942059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. In vivo versus in vitro microtensile bond strength of axial versus gingival cavity preparation walls in Class II resin-based composite restorations.
    Purk JH; Dusevich V; Glaros A; Spencer P; Eick JD
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2004 Feb; 135(2):185-93; quiz 228. PubMed ID: 15005434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class II bonded amalgam and new tooth-colored restorations.
    Görücü J; Ozgünaltay G
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):501-7. PubMed ID: 14531594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.