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
113 related items for PubMed ID: 3248692
21. Surface wear on cervical restorations and adjacent enamel and root cementum caused by simulated long-term maintenance therapy. Rühling A, Wulf J, Schwahn C, Kocher T. J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Apr; 31(4):293-8. PubMed ID: 15016258 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. 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 Apr; 33(2):203-8. PubMed ID: 18435196 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. [An in vitro model for the simulation of approximal wear]. Schmidlin PR, Pasqualetti T, Imfeld T, Besek M. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2003 Apr; 113(4):427-38. PubMed ID: 12768888 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. [Study of wear of restorative materials and teeth-antagonists in vitro]. Nikolaenko SA, Petchelt A, Pelka M, Lohbauer U. Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2006 Apr; 85(4):9-13. PubMed ID: 17047603 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Wear of CAD/CAM ceramic inlays: restorations, opposing cusps, and luting cements. Krejci I, Lutz F, Reimer M. Quintessence Int; 1994 Mar; 25(3):199-207. PubMed ID: 8008821 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Two-body wear of resin and ceramic denture teeth in comparison to human enamel. Ghazal M, Yang B, Ludwig K, Kern M. Dent Mater; 2008 Apr; 24(4):502-7. PubMed ID: 17688934 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. In vitro wear response of composite resin, amalgam, and enamel. Powell JM, Phillips RW, Norman RD. J Dent Res; 1975 Apr; 54(6):1183-95. PubMed ID: 1059657 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. [Comparative in vivo wear-resistance measurements between amalgam and composite materials. Results after 2 years]. Meier C, Lutz F. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1980 Apr; 35(4):489-92. PubMed ID: 6931810 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. [Abrasion measurements in vivo in occlusal composite and amalgam fillings]. Meier C, Lutz F. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1978 Sep; 33(9):617-22. PubMed ID: 279445 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Wear resistance of four luting agents as a function of marginal gap distance, cement type, and restorative material. Guzman AF, Moore BK, Andres CJ. Int J Prosthodont; 1997 Sep; 10(5):415-25. PubMed ID: 9495160 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. In vitro two-body wear of inlay-onlay composite resin restoratives. Burgoyne AR, Nicholls JI, Brudvik JS. J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Feb; 65(2):206-14. PubMed ID: 2051355 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Composite restorative materials in dental practice: a review. Paffenbarger GC, Rupp NW. Int Dent J; 1974 Mar; 24(1):1-17. PubMed ID: 4600473 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Attritional wear and abrasive surface alterations of composite resin materials in vitro. Göhring TN, Besek MJ, Schmidlin PR. J Dent; 2002 Mar; 30(2-3):119-27. PubMed ID: 12381412 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials. Hudson JD, Goldstein GR, Georgescu M. J Prosthet Dent; 1995 Dec; 74(6):647-54. PubMed ID: 8778391 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Influence of contact stress, sliding velocity, and surface roughness on the sliding wear of a composite restorative. Bailey WF, Rice SL, Albert RL, Temin SC. J Dent Res; 1981 May; 60(5):914-8. PubMed ID: 6938567 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]