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.
22. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Fiber-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations Immersed in Three Different Beverages: In Vitro Study. George MA, Chandak SA, Khekade SH, Gahlod NB, Wasnik MB, V SM. J Contemp Dent Pract; 2024 Apr 01; 25(4):346-353. PubMed ID: 38956850 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Influence of restorative techniques on marginal adaptation and dye penetration around Class V restorations. Pereira Ade F, Poiate IA, Poiate E, Rodrigues FP, Turbino ML, Miranda WG. Gen Dent; 2012 Jul 01; 60(1):e17-21. PubMed ID: 22313988 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Marginal microleakage of alternative restorative treatment and conventional glass ionomer restorations in extracted primary molars. Wadenya RO, Yego C, Mante FK. J Dent Child (Chic); 2010 Jul 01; 77(1):32-5. PubMed ID: 20359427 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Microleakage of four composite resin systems in class II restorations. Majeed A, Osman YI, Al-Omari T. SADJ; 2009 Nov 01; 64(10):484-8. PubMed ID: 20306869 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Restorations of Class II Cavities Evaluated for Marginal Leakage When Restored with Composites or a Giomer Using Different Bonding Agents. Gupta N, Singh N. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2023 Oct 24; (7):s129-s145. PubMed ID: 37879054 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Influence of Hand Instrumentation and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Microleakage of various Cervical Restorations: An in vitro Study. Rohani B, Barekatain M, Farhad SZ, Haghayegh N. J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Jun 01; 18(6):437-442. PubMed ID: 28621270 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars. Gaintantzopoulou MD, Gopinath VK, Zinelis S. Clin Oral Investig; 2017 May 01; 21(4):1063-1070. PubMed ID: 27165307 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of the marginal microleakage of a bioactive composite resin and traditional dental restorative materials. Adeyeye A, Spivey V, Stoeckel D, Welch D. Gen Dent; 2023 May 01; 71(3):52-56. PubMed ID: 37083614 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Microleakage of glass ionomer restoration in cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in primary teeth. Rossi RR, Aranha AC, Eduardo Cde P, Ferreira LS, Navarro RS, Zezell DM. J Dent Child (Chic); 2008 May 01; 75(2):151-7. PubMed ID: 18647510 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars. Gopinath VK. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2017 May 01; 35(3):238-243. PubMed ID: 28762350 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Microleakage of compomer restorations in primary teeth after preparation with bur or air abrasion. Aysegül O, Nurhan O, Haluk B, Dilek T. Oper Dent; 2005 May 01; 30(2):164-9. PubMed ID: 15853100 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Impact of refrigeration of different Resin composite restorative materials on the marginal adaptation in class II restorations. El-Maksoud OA, Hamama H, Wafaie RA, El-Wassefy N, Mahmoud SH. BMC Oral Health; 2024 Oct 03; 24(1):1174. PubMed ID: 39363215 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The marginal seal of a flowable composite, an injectable resin modified glass ionomer and a compomer in primary molars--an in vitro study. Prabhakar AR, Madan M, Raju OS. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2003 Jun 03; 21(2):45-8. PubMed ID: 14700335 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]