|
|
|
Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 130-135
|
|
How does zinc oxide-eugenol compare to ferric sulphate as a pulpotomy material?
a
|
|
Author keywords
[No Author keywords available]
|
|
Indexed keywords
FERRIC ION;
FERRIC SULFATE;
ZINC OXIDE EUGENOL;
ARTICLE;
CHILD;
CLINICAL TRIAL;
COMPARATIVE STUDY;
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL;
CONTROLLED STUDY;
DECIDUOUS TOOTH;
DENTAL SURGERY;
ENDODONTICS;
FEMALE;
FOLLOW UP;
HEMOSTASIS;
HUMAN;
MALE;
MANDIBLE;
MAXILLA;
METHODOLOGY;
MOLAR TOOTH;
PRESCHOOL CHILD;
RADIOGRAPHY;
TREATMENT OUTCOME;
CHILD;
CHILD, PRESCHOOL;
DENTAL PULP CAPPING;
DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT;
FEMALE;
FERRIC COMPOUNDS;
FOLLOW-UP STUDIES;
HEMOSTATIC TECHNIQUES;
HUMANS;
MALE;
MANDIBLE;
MAXILLA;
MOLAR;
PULPOTOMY;
TOOTH, DECIDUOUS;
TREATMENT OUTCOME;
ZINC OXIDE-EUGENOL CEMENT;
|
|
EID: 33748528941
PISSN: 10294864
EISSN: None
Source Type: Journal
DOI: None Document Type: Article |
|
Times cited : (9)
|
|
References (0)
|
