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

290 related items for PubMed ID: 9522697

  • 1. Marginal morphology of Class V composite restorations.
    Prati C, Chersoni S, Cretti L, Mongiorgi R.
    Am J Dent; 1997 Oct; 10(5):231-6. PubMed ID: 9522697
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Effect of finishing time and techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite restorative materials.
    Lopes GC, Franke M, Maia HP.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jul; 88(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 12239477
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Influence of tissue characteristics at margins on leakage of Class II indirect porcelain restorations.
    Ferrari M, Mason PN, Fabianelli A, Cagidiaco MC, Kugel G, Davidson CL.
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):134-42. PubMed ID: 10649936
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Marginal adaption of Class V restorations with and without "softstart-polymerization".
    Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Märkl A.
    Oper Dent; 2000 Jun; 25(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 11203787
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 13. Microleakage of Class V restorations using two different compomer systems: an in vitro study.
    Estafan D, Pines MS, Erakin C, Fuerst PF.
    J Clin Dent; 1999 Jun; 10(4):124-6. PubMed ID: 10825860
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. In vitro evaluation of four adhesive materials in the treatment of cervical lesions.
    Negri P.
    Minerva Stomatol; 1999 Jun; 48(6 Suppl 1):65-71. PubMed ID: 10549220
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Marginal adaptation of Class 5 composite restorations: retention grooves versus enamel and dentin bonding.
    Farid MR, Gomaa HM.
    Egypt Dent J; 1995 Jul; 41(3):1271-5. PubMed ID: 9497668
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 15.