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)

  • 41. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations.
    Wilder AD; May KN; Bayne SC; Taylor DF; Leinfelder KF
    J Esthet Dent; 1999; 11(3):135-42. PubMed ID: 10825870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Longevity of extensive class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement.
    van Dijken JW; Kieri C; Carlén M
    J Dent Res; 1999 Jul; 78(7):1319-25. PubMed ID: 10403459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Durability of a low shrinkage TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system in Class II restorations. A 6-year follow up.
    van Dijken JWV; Pallesen U
    Dent Mater; 2017 Aug; 33(8):944-953. PubMed ID: 28545657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    J Dent; 2016 Aug; 51():29-35. PubMed ID: 27238052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years.
    Lundin SA; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1999; 23(5-6):165-71. PubMed ID: 10901600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students.
    Moura FR; Romano AR; Lund RG; Piva E; Rodrigues Júnior SA; Demarco FF
    Braz Dent J; 2011; 22(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 21537583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Survival rate of sealed, refurbished and repaired defective restorations: 4-year follow-up.
    Fernández EM; Martin JA; Angel PA; Mjör IA; Gordan VV; Moncada GA
    Braz Dent J; 2011; 22(2):134-9. PubMed ID: 21537587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.
    Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Watson RE; Garvan C; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 May; 138(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 17473040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.
    Wassell RW; Walls AW; McCabe JF
    J Dent; 2000 Aug; 28(6):375-82. PubMed ID: 10856800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 24-month results.
    dos Santos MP; Passos M; Luiz RR; Maia LC
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2009 Feb; 140(2):156-66; quiz 247-8. PubMed ID: 19188412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Evaluation of the mechanical and physical properties of a posterior resin composite in posterior adult teeth.
    Agbaje LO; Shaba OP; Adegbulugbe IC
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2010 Dec; 13(4):431-5. PubMed ID: 21220860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
    Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations.
    Yazici AR; Antonson SA; Kutuk ZB; Ergin E
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(5):478-485. PubMed ID: 28581919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Factors influencing dentists' choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients.
    Vidnes-Kopperud S; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2009; 67(2):74-9. PubMed ID: 19085213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial.
    Barabanti N; Gagliani M; Roulet JF; Testori T; Ozcan M; Cerutti A
    J Dent; 2013 May; 41(5):436-42. PubMed ID: 23454329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up.
    Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Palma-Dibb RG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 31(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 15025658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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