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)

  • 41. A clinical evaluation of occlusal composite and amalgam restorations: one- and two-year results.
    Gibson GB; Richardson AS; Patton RE; Waldman R
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1982 Mar; 104(3):335-7. PubMed ID: 6949980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations.
    Ozer F; Irmak O; Yakymiv O; Mohammed A; Pande R; Saleh N; Blatz M
    Oper Dent; 2021 Jan; 46(1):E60-E67. PubMed ID: 33882138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R; Santiago SL; Mendonça JS; Passos VF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Sadeghi M; Lynch CD; Shahamat N
    J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years.
    Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
    Quintessence Int; 2005 May; 36(5):365-72. PubMed ID: 15892534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants.
    Martin J; Fernandez E; Estay J; Gordan VV; Mjor IA; Moncada G
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 22788726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. A comparison of glazing materials for composite restorations.
    Garman TA; Fairhurst CW; Heuer GA; Williams HA; Beglau DL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1977 Nov; 95(5):950-6. PubMed ID: 269875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Anterior Z250 resin composite restorations: one-year evaluation of clinical performance.
    Närhi TO; Tanner J; Ostela I; Narva K; Nohrström T; Tirri T; Vallittu PK
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Dec; 7(4):241-3. PubMed ID: 14505071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin.
    Barnes DM; Blank LW; Thompson VP; Holston AM; Gingell JC
    Quintessence Int; 1991 Feb; 22(2):143-51. PubMed ID: 2068249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
    Popoff DA; Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):E1-11. PubMed ID: 23215545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Evaluation of occlusal marginal adaptation of Class II resin-composite restorations.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Borgmeijer PJ; Gruythuysen RJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1993; 60(4-5):310-4. PubMed ID: 8258575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Clinical comparison of bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: two-year follow-up.
    Yazici AR; Baseren M; Gorucu J
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: effect of adhesive systems.
    Sundfeld RH; Scatolin RS; Oliveira FG; Machado LS; Alexandre RS; Sundefeld ML
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Effect of pre- and postoperative bleaching on marginal leakage of amalgam and composite restorations.
    Ulukapi H; Benderli Y; Ulukapi I
    Quintessence Int; 2003; 34(7):505-8. PubMed ID: 12946068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Three-year clinical evaluation of cuspal coverage with combined composite-amalgam in endodontically-treated maxillary premolars.
    Shafiei F; Memarpour M; Doozandeh M
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):599-604. PubMed ID: 21179997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Giráldez I; Ceballos L
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
    Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 12744410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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