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

516 related items for PubMed ID: 8432948

  • 21. Class I and Class II silver amalgam and resin composite posterior restorations: teaching approaches in Canadian faculties of dentistry.
    McComb D.
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2005 Jun; 71(6):405-6. PubMed ID: 15955263
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations.
    Hickel R, Manhart J, García-Godoy F.
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):41D-54D. PubMed ID: 11763918
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in Class I and II restorations: 2-year results.
    Lundin SA, Rasmusson CG.
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Oct; 35(9):758-62. PubMed ID: 15471000
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study.
    Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia K.
    Pediatr Dent; 1999 Oct; 21(4):231-4. PubMed ID: 10436476
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden.
    Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, van Dijken JW, Funegård U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M.
    J Dent; 2009 Sep; 37(9):673-8. PubMed ID: 19477572
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. [Amalgam. IX. Substitute for amalgam: durability of composite restorations].
    Schuurs AH, van Amerongen JP.
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1993 Oct; 100(10):437-41. PubMed ID: 11822139
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. The amalgam-free dental school.
    Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, Loomans BA.
    J Dent; 2004 Jul; 32(5):371-7. PubMed ID: 15193785
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. [Composite or amalgam? Not a black or white decision].
    Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, Burgersdijk RC.
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1992 Oct; 99(10):371-4. PubMed ID: 11820006
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Materials for conservative posterior restorations.
    Donovan TE, Cho GC.
    J Calif Dent Assoc; 1996 Sep; 24(9):32-8. PubMed ID: 9120610
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Anaerobic microflora under Class I and Class II composite and amalgam restorations.
    Splieth C, Bernhardt O, Heinrich A, Bernhardt H, Meyer G.
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Sep; 34(7):497-503. PubMed ID: 12946067
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: a 2-year clinical evaluation.
    de Araujo MA, Araújo RM, Marsilio AL.
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):87-93. PubMed ID: 9643241
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. A randomized clinical trial of cusp-replacing resin composite restorations: efficiency and short-term effectiveness.
    Kuijs RH, Fennis WM, Kreulen CM, Roeters FJ, Creugers NH, Burgersdijk RC.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006 Feb; 19(4):349-54. PubMed ID: 16900817
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Posterior composite restorations and post-operative sensitivity.
    Brandt PD, de Wet FA.
    SADJ; 2006 Mar; 61(2):064, 066-8. PubMed ID: 16711558
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. A two-year clinical evaluation of TPH for restoration of Class II carious lesions in permanent teeth.
    Perry RD, Kugel G, Habib CM, McGarry P, Settembrini L.
    Gen Dent; 1997 Mar; 45(4):344-9. PubMed ID: 9515440
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Resin-based composites and compomers in primary molars.
    García-Godoy F.
    Dent Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 44(3):541-70. PubMed ID: 10925772
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Restoration of posterior teeth in clinical practice: evidence base for choosing amalgam versus composite.
    Kovarik RE.
    Dent Clin North Am; 2009 Jan; 53(1):71-6, ix. PubMed ID: 19215745
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Comparison of wear and clinical performance between amalgam, composite and open sandwich restorations: 2-year results.
    Sachdeo A, Gray GB, Sulieman MA, Jagger DC.
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2004 Mar; 12(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 15058177
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Composite resin support of undermined enamel in amalgam restorations.
    Eidelman E.
    Pediatr Dent; 1999 Mar; 21(2):118-20. PubMed ID: 10197337
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
    Deliperi S, Bardwell DN.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006 Mar; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Direct posterior composite restorations: simplified success through a systematic approach.
    Koczarski MJ, Corredor AC.
    Pract Proced Aesthet Dent; 2002 Mar; 14(1):87-94; quiz 96. PubMed ID: 11905163
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 26.