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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9610854)

  • 21. Effect of finishing time and techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite restorative materials.
    Lopes GC; Franke M; Maia HP
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jul; 88(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 12239477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Influence of axiopulpal line angle and proximal retention on fracture strength of amalgam restorations.
    Amorim A; de Lima Navarro MF; Mondelli J; Lopes ES
    J Prosthet Dent; 1978 Aug; 40(2):169-73. PubMed ID: 278834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Two-year clinical evaluation of packable and nanostructured resin-based composites placed with two techniques.
    Monteiro PM; Manso MC; Gavinha S; Melo P
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2010 Mar; 141(3):319-29. PubMed ID: 20194388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Clinical assessments of dental amalgam restorations.
    Mahler DB; Marantz RL
    Int Dent J; 1980 Dec; 30(4):327-34. PubMed ID: 6935163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing.
    Magni E; Zhang L; Hickel R; Bossù M; Polimeni A; Ferrari M
    J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 18757129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Replacement reasons and service time of class-II amalgam restorations in relation to cavity design.
    Jokstad A; Mjör IA
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1991 Apr; 49(2):109-26. PubMed ID: 2053429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.
    Busato AL; Loguercio AD; Reis A; Carrilho MR
    Am J Dent; 2001 Oct; 14(5):304-8. PubMed ID: 11803995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Adaptation of dental amalgam to the cavosurface margin of Class I cavity preparations.
    Symons AL; Wing G; Hewitt GH
    J Oral Rehabil; 1987 Jan; 14(1):65-76. PubMed ID: 3469378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Cavo-surface angles, amalgam margin angles and occlusal cavity preparations.
    Elderton RJ
    Br Dent J; 1984 May; 156(9):319-24. PubMed ID: 6587899
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10.
    Mertz-Fairhurst EJ; Curtis JW; Ergle JW; Rueggeberg FA; Adair SM
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1998 Jan; 129(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 9448347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effects of finishing/polishing techniques on microleakage of resin-modified glass ilonomer cement restorations.
    Yap AU; Yap WY; Yeo EJ; Tan JW; Ong DS
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(1):36-41. PubMed ID: 12540116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Evaluation of interproximal finishing techniques for silver amalgam restorations.
    Bower CF; Reinhardt RA; DuBois LM
    J Prosthet Dent; 1986 Sep; 56(3):274-8. PubMed ID: 3462385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.