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

110 related items for PubMed ID: 25864234

  • 1. In situ bacterial accumulation on dental restorative materials. CLSM/COMSTAT analysis.
    Padovani GC, Fùcio SB, Ambrosano GM, Correr-Sobrinho L, Puppin-Rontani RM.
    Am J Dent; 2015 Feb; 28(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 25864234
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Effect of cariogenic biofilm challenge on the surface hardness of direct restorative materials in situ.
    Barbosa RP, Pereira-Cenci T, Silva WM, Coelho-de-Souza FH, Demarco FF, Cenci MS.
    J Dent; 2012 May; 40(5):359-63. PubMed ID: 22326721
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials.
    de Fúcio SB, Puppin-Rontani RM, de Carvalho FG, Mattos-Graner Rde O, Correr-Sobrinho L, Garcia-Godoy F.
    Am J Dent; 2009 Jun; 22(3):131-6. PubMed ID: 19650591
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralisation.
    Sousa RP, Zanin IC, Lima JP, Vasconcelos SM, Melo MA, Beltrão HC, Rodrigues LK.
    J Dent; 2009 Jan; 37(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 19026481
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. An in vitro study on the secondary caries-prevention properties of three restorative materials.
    Lai GY, Zhu LK, Li MY, Wang J.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):363-8. PubMed ID: 23998624
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Gradual surface degradation of restorative materials by acidic agents.
    Hengtrakool C, Kukiattrakoon B, Kedjarune-Leggat U.
    Gen Dent; 2011 Nov; 59(2):e50-62. PubMed ID: 21903509
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. The effect of dental restorative materials on dental biofilm.
    Auschill TM, Arweiler NB, Brecx M, Reich E, Sculean A, Netuschil L.
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2002 Feb; 110(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 11878760
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Mineral loss on adjacent enamel glass ionomer cements restorations after cariogenic and erosive challenges.
    Salas CF, Guglielmi CA, Raggio DP, Mendes FM.
    Arch Oral Biol; 2011 Oct; 56(10):1014-9. PubMed ID: 21489401
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents.
    Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Flury S.
    Oper Dent; 2011 Oct; 36(3):266-73. PubMed ID: 21740244
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. In situ effect of an erosive challenge on different restorative materials and on enamel adjacent to these materials.
    Rios D, Honório HM, Francisconi LF, Magalhães AC, de Andrade Moreira Machado MA, Buzalaf MA.
    J Dent; 2008 Feb; 36(2):152-7. PubMed ID: 18191012
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Surface roughness analysis of four restorative materials exposed to 10% and 15% carbamide peroxide.
    Zavanelli AC, Mazaro VQ, Silva CR, Zavanelli RA, Mancuso DN.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011 Feb; 24(2):155-7. PubMed ID: 21479284
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Bond strength of luting cements to core foundation materials.
    Hewlett S, Wadenya RO, Mante FK.
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2010 Mar; 31(2):140-6. PubMed ID: 20344899
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. The influence of long term water immersion on shear bond strength of amalgam repaired by resin composite and mediated by adhesives or resin modified glass ionomers.
    Pilo R, Nissan J, Shafir H, Shapira G, Alter E, Brosh T.
    J Dent; 2012 Jul; 40(7):594-602. PubMed ID: 22504527
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Effects of external bleaching on restorative materials: a review.
    El-Murr J, Ruel D, St-Georges AJ.
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2011 Jul; 77():b59. PubMed ID: 21627869
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
    Neme AL, Evans DB, Maxson BB.
    Oper Dent; 2000 Jul; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Effect of surface characteristic of different restorative materials containing glass ionomer on Streptococcus mutans biofilm.
    Kelten OS, Hepdeniz OK, Tuncer Y, Kankaya DA, Gurdal O.
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2020 Jul; 23(7):957-964. PubMed ID: 32620725
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Comparison of the effect of topical fluorides on the commercially available conventional glass ionomers, resin modified glass ionomers and polyacid modified composite resins--an in vitro study.
    Setty JV, Singh S, Subba Reddy VV.
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2003 Jun; 21(2):55-69. PubMed ID: 14700337
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. The influence of different cements on the fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of all-ceramic and fiber-reinforced crowns.
    Behr M, Rosentritt M, Mangelkramer M, Handel G.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003 Jun; 16(5):538-42. PubMed ID: 14651242
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Effect of erosive pH cycling on different restorative materials and on enamel restored with these materials.
    Francisconi LF, Honório HM, Rios D, Magalhães AC, Machado MA, Buzalaf MA.
    Oper Dent; 2008 Jun; 33(2):203-8. PubMed ID: 18435196
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Effect of microleakage and fluoride on enamel-dentine demineralization around restorations.
    Cenci MS, Tenuta LM, Pereira-Cenci T, Del Bel Cury AA, ten Cate JM, Cury JA.
    Caries Res; 2008 Jun; 42(5):369-79. PubMed ID: 18753749
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 6.