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.
7. Comparison of the flexural strength of six reinforced restorative materials. Cohen BI; Volovich Y; Musikant BL; Deutsch AS Gen Dent; 2001; 49(5):484-8. PubMed ID: 12017792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessment of laminate technique using glass ionomer and resin composite for restoration of root filled teeth. Taha NA; Palamara JE; Messer HH J Dent; 2012 Aug; 40(8):617-23. PubMed ID: 22521705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Restorative materials. Mount GJ Aust Dent J; 1999 Jun; 44(2):138. PubMed ID: 10452172 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Direct and indirect adhesive restorative materials: a review. Kugel G Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):35D-40D. PubMed ID: 11763916 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Fracture toughness of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials: effect of powder/liquid ratio and powder particle size reduction on fracture toughness. Mitsuhashi A; Hanaoka K; Teranaka T Dent Mater; 2003 Dec; 19(8):747-57. PubMed ID: 14511733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems. Kasraei S; Azarsina M; Majidi S Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 21702678 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Shammaa I; Ngan P; Kim H; Kao E; Gladwin M; Gunel E; Brown C Angle Orthod; 1999 Oct; 69(5):463-9. PubMed ID: 10515145 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of cariogenic biofilm challenge on the surface hardness of direct restorative materials in situ. Barbosa RP; Pereira-Cenci T; Silva WM; Coelho-de-Souza FH; Demarco FF; Cenci MS J Dent; 2012 May; 40(5):359-63. PubMed ID: 22326721 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Laboratory evaluation of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. Millett DT; Cattanach D; McFadzean R; Pattison J; McColl J Angle Orthod; 1999 Feb; 69(1):58-63; discussion 64. PubMed ID: 10022186 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations. Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cuspal deflection in premolar teeth restored using current composite resins with and without resin-modified glass ionomer liner. Karaman E; Ozgunaltay G Oper Dent; 2013; 38(3):282-9. PubMed ID: 23092141 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials and on enamel restored with these materials. Francisconi LF; Honório HM; Rios D; Magalhães AC; Machado MA; Buzalaf MA Oper Dent; 2008; 33(2):203-8. PubMed ID: 18435196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of configuration factor on gap formation in hybrid composite resin, low-shrinkage composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer. Boroujeni PM; Mousavinasab SM; Hasanli E J Investig Clin Dent; 2015 May; 6(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 24415719 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]