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 *

224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9855855)

  • 21. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):466-72. PubMed ID: 11203858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting.
    Arnelund CF; Johansson A; Ericson M; Häger P; Fyrberg KA
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(3):302-6. PubMed ID: 15237876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Longevity of ceramic inlays and onlays luted with a solely light-curing composite resin.
    Schulte AG; Vöckler A; Reinhardt R
    J Dent; 2005 May; 33(5):433-42. PubMed ID: 15833400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays.
    Otto T; De Nisco S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 11951800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of Cements at Different Temperatures on the Clinical Performance and Marginal Adaptation of Inlay-Onlay Restorations In Vivo.
    Aygün Emiroğlu Ş; Evren B; Kulak Özkan Y
    J Prosthodont; 2016 Jun; 25(4):302-9. PubMed ID: 26215702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays bonded with different luting agents.
    Gemalmaz D; Ozcan M; Alkumru HN
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(3):273-83. PubMed ID: 11803715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Interfacial gaps following ceramic inlay cementation vs direct composites.
    Iida K; Inokoshi S; Kurosaki N
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 12877431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems.
    Molin MK; Karlsson SL
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 11203631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years--a clinical study.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R; Pelka M; Petschelt A
    J Dent; 1999 Jul; 27(5):325-31. PubMed ID: 10377606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Marginal integrity after fatigue loading of ceramic inlay restorations luted with three different cements.
    Abdalla AI; Davidson CL
    Am J Dent; 2000 Apr; 13(2):77-80. PubMed ID: 11764831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A 3-year clinical evaluation of Cerana prefabricated ceramic inlays.
    Odman P
    Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(1):79-82. PubMed ID: 11887604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Marginal adaptation of heat-pressed glass-ceramic veneers to Class 3 composite restorations in vitro.
    Christgau M; Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Edelmann K
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(4):233-44. PubMed ID: 10823069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays.
    Peumans M; Voet M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Van Ende A; Van Meerbeek B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Apr; 17(3):739-50. PubMed ID: 22707232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Finishing and polishing of indirect composite and ceramic inlays in-vivo: occlusal surfaces.
    Jung M; Wehlen O; Klimek J
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(2):131-41. PubMed ID: 15088723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Scanning electron microscopic and clinical examination of composite resin inlays/onlays up to 12 months in situ.
    Krejci I; Güntert A; Lutz F
    Quintessence Int; 1994 Jun; 25(6):403-9. PubMed ID: 7938428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A 5-year evaluation of ceramic inlays (CEREC).
    Berg NG; Dérand T
    Swed Dent J; 1997; 21(4):121-7. PubMed ID: 9413909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical evaluation of an all-ceramic restorative system: a 36-month clinical evaluation.
    Barnes D; Gingell JC; George D; Adachi E; Jefferies S; Sundar VV
    Am J Dent; 2010 Apr; 23(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 20608298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Two-year clinical evaluation of IPS Empress II ceramic onlays/inlays.
    Tagtekin DA; Ozyöney G; Yanikoglu F
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(4):369-78. PubMed ID: 19678440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.