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

471 related items for PubMed ID: 17867395

  • 1. An in vitro comparison of marginal microleakage of alternative restorative treatment and conventional glass ionomer restorations in extracted permanent molars.
    Wadenya R, Mante FK.
    Pediatr Dent; 2007; 29(4):303-7. PubMed ID: 17867395
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Marginal leakage of combinations of glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations.
    Sarne S, Mante MO, Mante FK.
    J Clin Dent; 1996; 7(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 9238879
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement.
    Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W.
    Aust Dent J; 2008 Dec; 53(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 19133948
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. An in-vitro investigation of microleakage and gap size of glass ionomer/composite resin "sandwich" restorations in primary teeth.
    Reid JS, Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Williams CE.
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1994 Dec; 61(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 7989627
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: a comparison of three in vitro procedures.
    al-Obaidi FF, Salama FS.
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1996 Dec; 21(1):71-6. PubMed ID: 9161211
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. The use of liners under amalgam restorations: an in vitro study on marginal leakage.
    Marchiori S, Baratieri LN, de Andrada MA, Monteiro Júnior S, Ritter AV.
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Oct; 29(10):637-42. PubMed ID: 9922761
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Effect of two different restorative techniques using resin-based composites on microleakage.
    Aranha AC, Pimenta LA.
    Am J Dent; 2004 Apr; 17(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 15151335
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Marginal sealing ability of three cervical restorative systems.
    Yap AU, Lim CC, Neo JC.
    Quintessence Int; 1995 Nov; 26(11):817-20. PubMed ID: 8628842
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Microleakage and marginal gap formation of glass ionomer resin restorations.
    Salama FS, Riad MI, Abdel Megid FY.
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1995 Nov; 20(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 8634192
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. In vitro evaluation of four adhesive materials in the treatment of cervical lesions.
    Negri P.
    Minerva Stomatol; 1999 Jun; 48(6 Suppl 1):65-71. PubMed ID: 10549220
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 24.