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

470 related items for PubMed ID: 8332536

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 4. Factors associated with clinical success of cervical abrasion/erosion restorations.
    Powell LV, Johnson GH, Gordon GE.
    Oper Dent; 1995; 20(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 8700767
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. The effect of incremental versus bulk fill techniques on the microleakage of composite resin using a glass-ionomer liner.
    Puckett A, Fitchie J, Hembree J, Smith J.
    Oper Dent; 1992; 17(5):186-91. PubMed ID: 1289865
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. A comparative study of microleakage below cemento-enamel junction using light cure and chemically cured glass ionomer cement liners.
    Gupta S, Khinda VI, Grewal N.
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2002 Dec; 20(4):158-64. PubMed ID: 12587752
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer.
    Payne JH.
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999 Dec; 23(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 10204453
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 13. Clinical comparison of Class V resin composite and glass ionomer restorations.
    Powell LV, Gordon GE, Johnson GH.
    Am J Dent; 1992 Oct; 5(5):249-52. PubMed ID: 1299249
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Microleakage of glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations in cut non-retentive preparations and pre-existing cervical erosion/abrasion lesions.
    Kaplan I, Harris EF, Mincer HH, Gilpatrick RO.
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1993 Apr; 73(2):24-8. PubMed ID: 8309244
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Cavity preparation devices: effect on microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations.
    Setien VJ, Cobb DS, Denehy GE, Vargas MA.
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 11572294
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Comparative quantitative and qualitative assessment of the marginal adaptation and apposition of bonded amalgam restorations using luting glass ionomer and 4-META adhesive liner under a scanning electron microscope. An in vitro study.
    Abraham MM, Sudeep PT, Bhat KS.
    Indian J Dent Res; 1999 Jun; 10(2):43-53. PubMed ID: 10865391
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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