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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10666968)

  • 21. Three-year clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite in minimally invasive occlusal cavities.
    Cehreli ZC; Altay N
    J Dent; 2000 Feb; 28(2):117-22. PubMed ID: 10666969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Wei SH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A two-year comparison of resin-based composite tunnel and Class II restorations in a randomized controlled trial.
    Kinomoto Y; Inoue Y; Ebisu S
    Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):253-6. PubMed ID: 15478486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
    da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
    J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students.
    Opdam NJ; Loomans BA; Roeters FJ; Bronkhorst EM
    J Dent; 2004 Jul; 32(5):379-83. PubMed ID: 15193786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
    Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.
    Yazici AR; Ustunkol I; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(3):248-55. PubMed ID: 24754716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
    Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2015 Oct; 31(10):1232-44. PubMed ID: 26321155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation.
    Marks LA; Weerheijm KL; van Amerongen WE; Groen HJ; Martens LC
    Caries Res; 1999; 33(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 10460963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT.
    Heck K; Manhart J; Hickel R; Diegritz C
    Dent Mater; 2018 Jun; 34(6):e138-e147. PubMed ID: 29636239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.
    Wucher M; Grobler SR; Senekal PJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):274-8. PubMed ID: 12572648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation.
    van Dijken JWV; Pallesen U
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2017 Aug; 125(4):303-309. PubMed ID: 28524243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure.
    Kopperud SE; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2012 Dec; 120(6):539-48. PubMed ID: 23167471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Extensive composite molar restorations: 3 years clinical evaluation.
    Laegreid T; Gjerdet NR; Johansson AK
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2012 Jul; 70(4):344-52. PubMed ID: 21780983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations.
    Johnson GH; Bales DJ; Gordon GE; Powell LV
    Quintessence Int; 1992 Oct; 23(10):705-11. PubMed ID: 1289954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.