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 *

262 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11000317)

  • 21. Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2009; 34(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 19953810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine.
    Dietrich T; Lösche AC; Lösche GM; Roulet JF
    J Dent; 1999 Feb; 27(2):119-28. PubMed ID: 10071469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A randomized controlled clinical trial of glass carbomer restorations in Class II cavities in primary molars: 12-month results.
    El-Housseiny AA; Alamoudi NM; Nouri S; Felemban O
    Quintessence Int; 2019; 50(7):522-532. PubMed ID: 31134226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
    J Adhes Dent; 2007 Oct; 9(5):469-75. PubMed ID: 18297828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Internal adaptation of resin composite restorations with different thicknesses of glass ionomer cement lining.
    Chailert O; Banomyong D; Vongphan N; Ekworapoj P; Burrow MF
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2018 May; 9(2):e12308. PubMed ID: 29226608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions.
    Loguercio AD; Reis A; Barbosa AN; Roulet JF
    J Adhes Dent; 2003; 5(4):323-32. PubMed ID: 15008339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
    Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hinkel R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
    Donly KJ; Segura A; Kanellis M; Erickson RL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1999 Oct; 130(10):1459-66. PubMed ID: 10570589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity.
    van Dijken JWV; Pallesen U; Benetti A
    Dent Mater; 2019 Feb; 35(2):335-343. PubMed ID: 30527586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in class V non-carious lesions.
    van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2000 Jul; 16(4):285-91. PubMed ID: 10831784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Class V lesions restored with four different tooth-colored materials--3-year results.
    Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2001 Mar; 5(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 11355096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Three-year performance of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II primary molar restorations.
    Dermata A; Papageorgiou SN; Kotsanos N
    Eur Arch Paediatr Dent; 2021 Jun; 22(3):425-432. PubMed ID: 33201411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation.
    Croll TP; Bar-Zion Y; Segura A; Donly KJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Aug; 132(8):1110-6. PubMed ID: 11575018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo.
    Opdam NJ; Roeters FJ; Feilzer AJ; Verdonschot EH
    J Dent; 1998 Sep; 26(7):555-62. PubMed ID: 9754743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement on primary teeth restorations.
    Tolidis K; Boutsiouki C; Gerasimou P
    Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2016 Sep; 17(3):227-233. PubMed ID: 27759413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results.
    Perdigão J; Dutra-Corrêa M; Saraceni SH; Ciaramicoli MT; Kiyan VH
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):591-601. PubMed ID: 22770485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives.
    Khoroushi M; Karvandi TM; Kamali B; Mazaheri H
    Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(3):378-83. PubMed ID: 23059577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Marginal leakage of composite resin and glass ionomer].
    Kfouri Lopes Mda G; Stroparo FM; Beltrami E; Stroparo CM; Segala AD
    Dens (Curitiba); 1989; 5(1-2):1-6. PubMed ID: 2490127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.