262 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11000317)
1. Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations.
Vilkinis V; Hörsted-Bindslev P; Baelum V
Clin Oral Investig; 2000 Sep; 4(3):133-9. PubMed ID: 11000317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years.
Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Kieri C
Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15241909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R
J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Modified Class II open sandwich restorations: evaluation of interfacial adaptation and influence of different restorative techniques.
Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
Eur J Oral Sci; 2002 Jun; 110(3):270-5. PubMed ID: 12120714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. An in-vitro investigation of microleakage and gap size of glass ionomer/composite resin "sandwich" restorations in primary teeth.
Reid JS; Saunders WP; Sharkey SW; Williams CE
ASDC J Dent Child; 1994; 61(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 7989627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Two-year clinical study on postoperative pulpal complications arising from the absence of a glass-ionomer lining in deep occlusal resin-composite restorations.
Banomyong D; Messer H
J Investig Clin Dent; 2013 Nov; 4(4):265-70. PubMed ID: 23355492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of dual cure composite as dentin substitute on the marginal integrity of Class II open-sandwich restorations.
Koubi S; Raskin A; Dejou J; About I; Tassery H; Camps J; Proust JP
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(2):165-71. PubMed ID: 20420059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
Ermiş RB
Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of postoperative bleaching on marginal leakage of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer restorations at different delayed periods of exposure to carbamide peroxide.
Moosavi H; Ghavamnasiri M; Manari V
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Nov; 10(6):E009-16. PubMed ID: 20020076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions.
Santiago SL; Passos VF; Vieira AH; Navarro MF; Lauris JR; Franco EB
Braz Dent J; 2010; 21(3):229-34. PubMed ID: 21203706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Microleakage and shear punch bond strength in class II primary molars cavities restored with low shrink silorane based versus methacrylate based composite using three different techniques.
Fahmy AE; Farrag NM
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2010; 35(2):173-81. PubMed ID: 21417120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Marginal leakage of combinations of glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations.
Sarne S; Mante MO; Mante FK
J Clin Dent; 1996; 7(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 9238879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An in vitro investigation of marginal dentine caries abutting composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations.
Knight GM; McIntyre JM; Craig GG; Mulyani ; Zilm PS; Gully NJ
Aust Dent J; 2007 Sep; 52(3):187-92. PubMed ID: 17969286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations.
Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Hiller KA; Mortazavi F
Oper Dent; 1997; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 9227124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
