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

245 related items for PubMed ID: 14579884

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparative in vivo and in vitro investigation of interfacial bond variability.
    Hannig M, Friedrichs C.
    Oper Dent; 2001 Aug; 26(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 11203774
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
    Stavridakis MM, Kakaboura AI, Ardu S, Krejci I.
    Oper Dent; 2007 Aug; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. The effect of different drying methods for single step adhesive systems on microleakage of tooth colored restorations.
    Owens BM.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2003 Feb 15; 4(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 12595929
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Influence of incorrect application of a water-based adhesive system on the marginal adaptation of Class V restorations.
    Peschke A, Blunck U, Roulet JF.
    Am J Dent; 2000 Oct 15; 13(5):239-44. PubMed ID: 11764109
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Flowable materials as an intermediate layer could improve the marginal and internal adaptation of composite restorations in Class-V-cavities.
    Li Q, Jepsen S, Albers HK, Eberhard J.
    Dent Mater; 2006 Mar 15; 22(3):250-7. PubMed ID: 16084584
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Adaptation of Class II Vitremer restorations with and without primer: a morphometric study.
    Gleicher H, Fuks AB, Sela J.
    Pediatr Dent; 1998 Mar 15; 20(4):263-6. PubMed ID: 9783297
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhesives.
    Uludag B, Ozturk O, Ozturk AN.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Oct 15; 102(4):235-41. PubMed ID: 19782826
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 15; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials.
    Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Droz D.
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2008 May 15; 75(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 18647507
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P.
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov 15; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and low-viscosity composite.
    de Andrade OS, de Goes MF, Montes MA.
    Dent Mater; 2007 Mar 15; 23(3):279-87. PubMed ID: 16546249
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Support of undermined occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials.
    Latino C, Troendle K, Summitt JB.
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr 15; 32(4):287-91. PubMed ID: 12066648
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations.
    Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Mortazavi F.
    Oper Dent; 1997 Apr 15; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 9227124
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Marginal adaptation of dentin bonded ceramic inlays: effects of bonding systems and luting resin composites.
    Haller B, Hässner K, Moll K.
    Oper Dent; 2003 Apr 15; 28(5):574-84. PubMed ID: 14531604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Direct dentin bonding technique sensitivity when using air/suction drying steps.
    Magne P, Mahallati R, Bazos P, So WS.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2008 Apr 15; 20(2):130-8; discussion 139-40. PubMed ID: 18380845
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Marginal adaptation of inlay-retained adhesive fixed partial dentures after mechanical and thermal stress: an in vitro study.
    Göehring TN, Peters OA, Lutz F.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Jul 15; 86(1):81-92. PubMed ID: 11458266
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
    Krämer N, Reinelt C, García-Godoy F, Taschner M, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R.
    Am J Dent; 2009 Aug 15; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Influence of solvent type in experimental dentin primer on the marginal adaptation of Class V restorations.
    Balkenhol M, Huang J, Wöstmann B, Hannig M.
    J Dent; 2007 Nov 15; 35(11):836-44. PubMed ID: 17905507
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations.
    Krämer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R.
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov 15; 13(Spec No):60D-76D. PubMed ID: 11763920
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 13.