98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9722096)
1. Amalgam alternatives-microleakage evaluation of clinical procedures. Part II: direct/indirect composite inlay systems.
Ziskind D; Elbaz B; Hirschfeld Z; Rosen L
J Oral Rehabil; 1998 Jul; 25(7):502-6. PubMed ID: 9722096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Amalgam alternatives--micro-leakage evaluation of clinical procedures. Part I: direct composite/composite inlay/ceramic inlay.
Ziskind D; Avivi-Arber L; Haramati O; Hirschfeld Z
J Oral Rehabil; 1998 Jun; 25(6):443-7. PubMed ID: 9687117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Microleakage of direct and indirect inlay/onlay systems.
Hasanreĭsoğlu U; Sönmez H; Uçtaşli S; Wilson HJ
J Oral Rehabil; 1996 Jan; 23(1):66-71. PubMed ID: 8850164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Comparison of microleakage of three acid-base luting cements versus one resin-bonded cement for Class V direct composite inlays.
Piemjai M; Miyasaka K; Iwasaki Y; Nakabayashi N
J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Dec; 88(6):598-603. PubMed ID: 12488852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Microleakage of indirect inlays placed on different kinds of glass ionomer cement linings.
Karaağaclioğlu L; Zaimoğlu A; Akören AC
J Oral Rehabil; 1992 Sep; 19(5):457-69. PubMed ID: 1453258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Evaluation of marginal leakage after mechanical fatigue cycling of composite inlays luted with different cements.
Melilli D; Cumbo EM; Baldissara P; Wandscher VF; Valandro LF; Gallina G; Pizzo G
Gen Dent; 2018; 66(4):51-55. PubMed ID: 29964249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. In vivo and in vitro evaluations of microleakage around Class I amalgam and composite restorations.
Alptekin T; Ozer F; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N; Blatz MB
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):641-8. PubMed ID: 21180003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Marginal leakage in direct and indirect composite resin restorations in primary teeth: an in vitro study.
Ferreira MC; Vieira RS
J Dent; 2008 May; 36(5):322-5. PubMed ID: 18336986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effects of cement-curing modes on dentin bonding of inlays.
Zuellig-Singer R; Krejci I; Lutz F
J Dent Res; 1992 Nov; 71(11):1842-6. PubMed ID: 1401449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cervical microleakage in MOD restorations: in vitro comparison of indirect and direct composite.
Duquia Rde C; Osinaga PW; Demarco FF; de V Habekost L; Conceição EN
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(6):682-7. PubMed ID: 17153977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Restoration interface microleakage using one total-etch and three self-etch adhesives.
Deliperi S; Bardwell DN; Wegley C
Oper Dent; 2007; 32(2):179-84. PubMed ID: 17427828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Influence of the internal conditioning of indirect restorations of resin composite in relation to microleakage using LEDs and QTH units.
Calabrez-Filho S; Calabrez VC; Reston EG; de Andrade MF; Borges LH
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):293-8. PubMed ID: 19544818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Microleakage of posterior composite restorations lined with self-adhesive resin cements.
Al-Saleh M; El-Mowafy O; Tam L; Fenton A
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(5):556-63. PubMed ID: 20945747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Microleakage in ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements.
Mota CS; Demarco FF; Camacho GB; Powers JM
J Adhes Dent; 2003; 5(1):63-70. PubMed ID: 12729085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Self-etching bonding systems: in-vitro micro-leakage evaluation.
Brandt PD; de Wet FA; du Preez IC
SADJ; 2006 Jul; 61(6):248, 250-1. PubMed ID: 16977953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Marginal seal of composite inlays using different polymerization techniques.
Liberman R; Ben-Amar A; Herteanu L; Judes H
J Oral Rehabil; 1997 Jan; 24(1):26-9. PubMed ID: 9049916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Gingival seal of deep Class II direct and indirect composite restorations.
Kenyon BJ; Frederickson D; Hagge MS
Am J Dent; 2007 Feb; 20(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 17380801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
