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 *

203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9372797)

  • 21. Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study.
    Cloyd S; Gilpatrick RO; Moore D
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1997 Oct; 77(4):36-40. PubMed ID: 9520761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Marginal failure of amalgam. Effect of alloy selection and bite forces.
    Dérand T
    Swed Dent J; 1983; 7(2):65-8. PubMed ID: 6576493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Jan; 23(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 16417916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effect of pulp protection technique on the clinical performance of amalgam restorations: three-year results.
    Baratieri LN; Machado A; Van Noort R; Ritter AV; Baratieri NM
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 12120767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy.
    Kiremitci A; Bolay S
    J Oral Rehabil; 2003 Jun; 30(6):664-7. PubMed ID: 12787466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Loomans BA; Huysmans MC
    J Dent Res; 2010 Oct; 89(10):1063-7. PubMed ID: 20660797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The influence of polishing on the marginal integrity of amalgam restorations.
    Letzel H; Vrijhoef MM
    J Oral Rehabil; 1984 Mar; 11(2):89-94. PubMed ID: 6585528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice.
    Bonsor SJ; Chadwick RG
    Br Dent J; 2009 Jan; 206(2):E3; discussion 88-9. PubMed ID: 19148188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Early failure of Class II resin composite versus Class II amalgam restorations placed by dental students.
    Overton JD; Sullivan DJ
    J Dent Educ; 2012 Mar; 76(3):338-40. PubMed ID: 22383602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Clinical behaviour of high-copper amalgams with time, site, size and class of cavity preparation.
    Smales RJ; Gerke DC; Hume WR
    J Dent; 1990 Feb; 18(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 2312889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Relationship of restoration width, tooth position, and alloy to fracture at the margins of 13- to 14-year-old amalgams.
    Osborne JW; Gale EN
    J Dent Res; 1990 Sep; 69(9):1599-601. PubMed ID: 2398187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Titanium posts and bonded amalgam core longevity: A 22-year clinical survival retrospective study.
    Caserío Valea M; Alonso de la Peña V
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2017 Feb; 148(2):75-80. PubMed ID: 27863694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [Criteria for choice of an alloy for dental amalgams].
    De Valkeneer I; Bercy P
    Actual Odontostomatol (Paris); 1990 Jun; 44(170):219-36. PubMed ID: 2088017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 13-year clinical assessment of 10 amalgam alloys.
    Osborne JW; Norman RD
    Dent Mater; 1990 Jul; 6(3):189-94. PubMed ID: 2086293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): variation by type of restoration and re-intervention.
    Lucarotti PS; Holder RL; Burke FJ
    J Dent; 2005 Nov; 33(10):805-15. PubMed ID: 16221519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in school children after 6.3 years.
    Frencken JE; van't Hof MA; Taifour D; Al-Zaher I
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 2007 Jun; 35(3):207-14. PubMed ID: 17518967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Gallium: an alternative for amalgam?].
    Schuurs AH; Davidson CL
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1997 Apr; 104(4):142-5. PubMed ID: 11924385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical evaluation of three amalgam alloys.
    Tyas MJ; Ewers GJ
    Aust Dent J; 1993 Jun; 38(3):225-8. PubMed ID: 8373297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A 4-year clinical evaluation of extensive amalgam restorations--description of the failures.
    Plasmans PJ; van 't Hof MA
    J Oral Rehabil; 1993 Nov; 20(6):561-70. PubMed ID: 10412478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.