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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9518821)

  • 1. Submargination of a resin luting cement--a clinical case report.
    Chan DC; Titus HW
    Tex Dent J; 1996 Dec; 113(12):22-5. PubMed ID: 9518821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations.
    Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):60D-76D. PubMed ID: 11763920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Three-year evaluation of computer-machined ceramic inlays: influence of luting agent.
    Zuellig-Singer R; Bryant RW
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Sep; 29(9):573-82. PubMed ID: 9807141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of marginal fit of class II ceromer inlays.
    Gemalmaz D; Kükrer D
    J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Jun; 33(6):436-42. PubMed ID: 16671990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars.
    Dejak B; Mlotkowski A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 18262014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Reinelt C; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Dent Mater; 2009 Aug; 25(8):960-8. PubMed ID: 19344946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays.
    Thordrup M; Isidor F; Hörsted-Bindslev P
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Mar; 32(3):199-205. PubMed ID: 12066659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of marginal integrity in ceramic inlays.
    Gemalmaz D; Sertgöz A; Ozcan M; Yoruç AB; Alkumru HN
    J Marmara Univ Dent Fac; 1996 Sep; 2(2-3):465-9. PubMed ID: 9569799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer.
    Monaco C; Baldissara P; dall'Orologio GD; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11842911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of cement type on the marginal adaptation of all-ceramic MOD inlays.
    Rosentritt M; Behr M; Lang R; Handel G
    Dent Mater; 2004 Jun; 20(5):463-9. PubMed ID: 15081553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Marginal breakdown of 5-year-old direct composite inlays.
    van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    J Dent; 1996 Nov; 24(6):389-94. PubMed ID: 8990682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Posterior composite resin restorations: assuring restorative integrity.
    Liebenberg WH
    FDI World; 1997; 6(2):12-7, 19-23. PubMed ID: 9552652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Kawamura Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhesives.
    Uludag B; Ozturk O; Ozturk AN
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Oct; 102(4):235-41. PubMed ID: 19782826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sealants: where we have been; where we are going.
    Donly KJ
    Gen Dent; 2002; 50(5):438-40. PubMed ID: 12448896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Frankenberger R
    J Dent; 2009 Nov; 37(11):813-9. PubMed ID: 19744761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo.
    Spreafico RC; Krejci I; Dietschi D
    J Dent; 2005 Jul; 33(6):499-507. PubMed ID: 15935270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: study protocol for the CECOIA randomized controlled trial.
    Fron Chabouis H; Prot C; Fonteneau C; Nasr K; Chabreron O; Cazier S; Moussally C; Gaucher A; Khabthani Ben Jaballah I; Boyer R; Leforestier JF; Caumont-Prim A; Chemla F; Maman L; Nabet C; Attal JP
    Trials; 2013 Sep; 14():278. PubMed ID: 24004961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of indirect composite inlays cemented with four luting agents.
    Gerdolle DA; Mortier E; Loos-Ayav C; Jacquot B; Panighi MM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):563-70. PubMed ID: 15942618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.