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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1058913)

  • 21. Two-year clinical evaluation of light-cured composite resin restorations in primary molars.
    Tonn EM; Ryge G
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1985 Jul; 111(1):44-8. PubMed ID: 3897334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2008; 118(4):290-5. PubMed ID: 18491670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students.
    Naghipur S; Pesun I; Nowakowski A; Kim A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):336-9. PubMed ID: 27086110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 1-year clinical evaluation of Compoglass and Fuji II LC in cervical erosion/abfraction lesions.
    Brackett WW; Browning WD; Ross JA; Gregory PN; Owens BM
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):119-22. PubMed ID: 10649933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices.
    Burke FJ; Crisp RJ; Bell TJ; Healy A; Mark B; McBirnie R; Osborne-Smith KL
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):293-8. PubMed ID: 12066649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Four-year in vivo evaluation of the composite/bonding resin-tooth interface.
    Bellezza JJ; McCartha CD; Bradley EL; Denys FR; Retief DH
    Dent Mater; 1990 Oct; 6(4):237-40. PubMed ID: 2086301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
    Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Esthetic veneering of amalgam restorations with composite resin--combining the best of both worlds?
    Plasmans PJ; Reukers EA
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(2):66-71. PubMed ID: 8337184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Composite versus amalgam restorations. A three-year clinical evaluation.
    Hendriks FH; Letzel H; Vrijhoef MM
    J Oral Rehabil; 1986 Sep; 13(5):401-11. PubMed ID: 3464721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The clinical evaluation of a single-bottle adhesive system with three restorative materials in children: six-month results.
    Baghdadi ZD
    Gen Dent; 2005; 53(5):357-65; quiz 366-8. PubMed ID: 16252540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study.
    Cloyd S; Gilpatrick RO; Moore D
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1997 Oct; 77(4):36-40. PubMed ID: 9520761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Watson RE; Mjor IA
    Am J Dent; 2005 Feb; 18(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15810481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Marginal fracture of posterior composite resins.
    Fukushima M; Setcos JC; Phillips RW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1988 Oct; 117(5):577-83. PubMed ID: 3066806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Durability of new restorative materials in Class III cavities.
    van Dijken JW
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 11317385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
    Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
    Stavridakis MM; Kakaboura AI; Ardu S; Krejci I
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical Evaluation of Silorane and Nano-hybrid Resin Composite Restorations in Class II Cavities up to 3 Years.
    Öztürk-Bozkurt F; Toz T; Kara-Tuncer A; Gözükara-Bağ H; Özcan M
    Oper Dent; 2016; 41(6):599-606. PubMed ID: 27589274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Five-year Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled and a Nanohybrid Composite in Class IV Cavities.
    Demirci M; Tuncer S; Sancakli HS; Tekçe N; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2018; 43(3):261-271. PubMed ID: 29533716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.