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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

396 related items for PubMed ID: 10823086

  • 21. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite.
    Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M, Eskitascioglu G.
    Int Endod J; 2005 Feb; 38(2):73-80. PubMed ID: 15667628
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Effect of three direct restorative materials on molar cuspal fracture resistance.
    Allara FW, Diefenderfer KE, Molinaro JD.
    Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):228-32. PubMed ID: 15478480
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Performance of techniques used for re-attachment of endodontically treated crown fractured teeth.
    Loguercio AD, Leski G, Sossmeier D, Kraul A, Oda M, Patzlaff RT, Reis A.
    J Dent; 2008 Apr; 36(4):249-55. PubMed ID: 18308450
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with combined composite-amalgam restorations.
    Geiger S, Paikin L, Gorfil C, Gordon M.
    Quintessence Int; 2008 Feb; 39(2):e58-62. PubMed ID: 18560642
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure location on the fracture resistance of restored endodontically treated anterior teeth.
    Ng CC, Dumbrigue HB, Al-Bayat MI, Griggs JA, Wakefield CW.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Apr; 95(4):290-6. PubMed ID: 16616126
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations.
    Cötert HS, Sen BH, Balkan M.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001 Apr; 14(4):374-8. PubMed ID: 11508095
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Fracture resistance of extensive amalgam restorations retained by pins, amalgapins and amalgam bonding agents.
    Imbery TA, Coudron J, Moon PC.
    Oper Dent; 2008 Apr; 33(6):666-74. PubMed ID: 19051860
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. The influence of a packable resin composite, conventional resin composite and amalgam on molar cuspal stiffness.
    Molinaro JD, Diefenderfer KE, Strother JM.
    Oper Dent; 2002 Apr; 27(5):516-24. PubMed ID: 12216572
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Influence of adhesive techniques on fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars with various residual wall thicknesses.
    Scotti N, Rota R, Scansetti M, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G, Pasqualini D, Berutti E.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):376-82. PubMed ID: 24095213
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Effect of dentin bonding and ferrule preparation on the fracture strength of crowned teeth restored with dowels and amalgam cores.
    Aykent F, Kalkan M, Yucel MT, Ozyesil AG.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Apr; 95(4):297-301. PubMed ID: 16616127
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 32. Fracture resistance of reattached incisor fragments with mini fibre-reinforced composite anchors.
    Fennis WM, Kreulen CM, Wolke JG, Fokkinga WA, Machado C, Creugers NH.
    J Dent; 2009 Jun; 37(6):462-7. PubMed ID: 19339099
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Retention of complex amalgam restorations using self-threading pins, amalgapins, and Amalgambond.
    Imbery TA, Hilton TJ, Reagan SE.
    Am J Dent; 1995 Jun; 8(3):117-21. PubMed ID: 8599585
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars restored with bonded amalgam.
    el-Badrawy WA.
    Oper Dent; 1999 Jun; 24(6):337-43. PubMed ID: 10823082
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
    Yamada Y, Tsubota Y, Fukushima S.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004 Jun; 17(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 15008239
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution.
    Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Gomide HA, Araujo CA, Martins LR, Soares CJ.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):114-22. PubMed ID: 18262012
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Effect of two different types of fibers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with composite resin.
    Khan SI, Anupama R, Deepalakshmi M, Kumar KS.
    J Adhes Dent; 2013 Apr; 15(2):167-71. PubMed ID: 23534017
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Effect of different onlay systems on fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored with and without glass fiber posts.
    Salameh Z, Ounsi HF, Aboushelib MN, Al-Hamdan R, Sadig W, Ferrari M.
    Am J Dent; 2010 Apr; 23(2):81-6. PubMed ID: 20608297
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 20.