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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9699439)

  • 1. Cusp reinforcement by bonding of amalgam restorations.
    Pilo R; Brosh T; Chweidan H
    J Dent; 1998; 26(5-6):467-72. PubMed ID: 9699439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner.
    Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. In vitro measurement of cuspal strain and displacement in composite restored teeth.
    Meredith N; Setchell DJ
    J Dent; 1997; 25(3-4):331-7. PubMed ID: 9175365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Microleakage of light-cured resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer dentin bonding agents applied with co-cure vs pre-cure technique.
    Tulunoglu O; Uçtaşh M; Alaçam A; Omürlü H
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):292-8. PubMed ID: 11203833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Bond strength comparison of amalgam repair protocols using resin composite in situations with and without dentin exposure.
    Ozcan M; Schoonbeek G; Gökçe B; Cömlekoglu E; Dündar M
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):655-62. PubMed ID: 21180005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of amalgam bonding on the stiffness of teeth weakened by cavity preparation.
    Zidan O; Abdel-Keriem U
    Dent Mater; 2003 Nov; 19(7):680-5. PubMed ID: 12901995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fracture resistance of four different restorations for cuspal replacement.
    Segura A; Riggins R
    J Oral Rehabil; 1999 Dec; 26(12):928-31. PubMed ID: 10620155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations: effect of thermal cycling.
    Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M; Theodoridou-Pahini S; Papadogiannis Y; Karezis A
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):316-23. PubMed ID: 11203837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to amalgam with different intermediate resins and adhesives.
    Germec D; Cakan U; Ozdemir FI; Arun T; Cakan M
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Apr; 31(2):207-12. PubMed ID: 19073953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Lindemuth JS; Hagge MS; Broome JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 11203813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mechanical retention versus bonding of amalgam and gallium alloy restorations.
    Eakle WS; Staninec M; Yip RL; Chavez MA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1994 Oct; 72(4):351-4. PubMed ID: 7990038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Amalgam bonding: visualization and clinical implications of adhesive displacement during amalgam condensation.
    Tyler DW; Thurmeier J
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11203781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Potential of restorative systems with simplified adhesives: quantitative analysis of wear and marginal adaptation in vitro.
    Göhring TN; Schönenberger KA; Lutz F
    Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):275-82. PubMed ID: 14579884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining.
    Guéders AM; Charpentier JF; Albert AI; Geerts SO
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):450-5. PubMed ID: 16924985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cuspal flexure of teeth with composite restorations subjected to occlusal loading.
    González-López S; Vilchez Díaz MA; de Haro-Gasquet F; Ceballos L; de Haro-Muñoz C
    J Adhes Dent; 2007 Feb; 9(1):11-5. PubMed ID: 17432396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of bonded amalgam on the fracture resistance of teeth.
    Eakle WS; Staninec M; Lacy AM
    J Prosthet Dent; 1992 Aug; 68(2):257-60. PubMed ID: 1501170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.