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

609 related items for PubMed ID: 19544814

  • 1. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT, Pfeiffer P.
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris JR, Navarro MF, de Carvalho RM.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May 01; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH, Klein-Júnior CA, Camargo JC, Beskow T, Balestrin MD, Demarco FF.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar 01; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ, Mondelli RF, Navarro MF, Francischone CE, Rubo JH, Santos GC.
    Oper Dent; 2013 Mar 01; 38(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 22856680
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Gurgan S.
    Oper Dent; 2009 Mar 01; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.
    Frankenberger R, Petschelt A, Krämer N.
    Oper Dent; 2000 Mar 01; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Kawamura Y, Miura M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S.
    Oper Dent; 2000 Mar 01; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Long-term survival of Cerec restorations: a 10-year study.
    Zimmer S, Göhlich O, Rüttermann S, Lang H, Raab WH, Barthel CR.
    Oper Dent; 2008 Mar 01; 33(5):484-7. PubMed ID: 18833853
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years.
    Krämer N, Ebert J, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R.
    Dent Mater; 2006 Jan 01; 22(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 16122784
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
    da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguércio AD, Demarco FF.
    J Dent; 2006 Aug 01; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May 01; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Influence of cavity design and restorative material on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars.
    Cubas GB, Camacho GB, Pereira-Cenci T, Nonaka T, Barbin EL.
    Gen Dent; 2010 May 01; 58(2):e84-8. PubMed ID: 20236909
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 01; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Krämer N.
    Dent Mater; 2009 Aug 01; 25(8):960-8. PubMed ID: 19344946
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW.
    J Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R, Sindel J, Krämer N, Petschelt A.
    Oper Dent; 1999 Jun 01; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems.
    Molin MK, Karlsson SL.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000 Jun 01; 13(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 11203631
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation.
    Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigão J.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2013 Feb 01; 25(1):55-69. PubMed ID: 23374411
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Fatigue load of teeth restored with bonded direct composite and indirect ceramic inlays in MOD class II cavity preparations.
    Shor A, Nicholls JI, Phillips KM, Libman WJ.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003 Feb 01; 16(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 12675458
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage.
    Coelho-De-Souza FH, Camacho GB, Demarco FF, Powers JM.
    Oper Dent; 2008 Feb 01; 33(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 18335731
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 31.