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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11000317)

  • 41. A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars.
    Webman M; Mulki E; Roldan R; Arevalo O; Roberts JF; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2016; 40(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 26696100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A clinical study of the "open sandwich" technique in pediatric dental practice.
    Cannon ML
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2003; 70(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 12762613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The effects of cavity preparation and lamination on bond strength and fracture of tooth-colored restorations in primary molars.
    Suwatviroj P; Messer LB; Palamara JE
    Pediatr Dent; 2003; 25(6):534-40. PubMed ID: 14733466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: An 18-Month Clinical Trial.
    Jassal M; Mittal S; Tewari S
    Oper Dent; 2018; 43(6):581-592. PubMed ID: 29782222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Effect of dual cure composite as dentin substitute on marginal integrity of class II open-sandwich restorations.
    Koubi S; Raskin A; Dejou J; About I; Tassery H; Camps J; Proust JP
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(2):150-6. PubMed ID: 19363970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Dias AGA; Magno MB; Delbem ACB; Cunha RF; Maia LC; Pessan JP
    J Dent; 2018 Jun; 73():1-13. PubMed ID: 29649506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
    Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effect of multi-step dentin bonding systems and resin-modified glass ionomer cement liner on marginal quality of dentin-bonded resin composite Class II restorations.
    Haller B; Trojanski A
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Sep; 2(3):130-6. PubMed ID: 9927914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations.
    Toledano M; Osorio E; Osorio R; García-Godoy F
    J Prosthet Dent; 1999 May; 81(5):610-5. PubMed ID: 10220667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 10 year comparison of glass ionomer and composite resin restoration materials in class 1 and 2 cavities.
    Hutchison C; Cave V
    Evid Based Dent; 2019 Dec; 20(4):113-114. PubMed ID: 31863046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    Clin Oral Investig; 2010 Apr; 14(2):217-22. PubMed ID: 19504133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results.
    Folwaczny M; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):153-6. PubMed ID: 11572293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.
    Balkaya H; Arslan S; Pala K
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2019; 27():e20180678. PubMed ID: 31596369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities.
    Gurgan S; Kutuk ZB; Yalcin Cakir F; Ergin E
    J Dent; 2020 Mar; 94():103175. PubMed ID: 31351909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up.
    Pollington S; van Noort R
    Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 18435377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Nanoleakage related to bond strength in RM-GIC and adhesive restorations.
    Marquezan M; Skupien JA; da Silveira BL; Ciamponi A
    Eur Arch Paediatr Dent; 2011 Feb; 12(1):15-21. PubMed ID: 21299940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Two-year results with box-only resin composite restorations.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Borgmeijer PJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1995; 62(6):395-400. PubMed ID: 8636474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial.
    Atieh M
    Int J Paediatr Dent; 2008 Sep; 18(5):325-32. PubMed ID: 18328050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Influence of dentin conditioning and contamination on the marginal integrity of sandwich Class II restorations.
    Dietrich T; Kraemer M; Lösche GM; Wernecke KD; Roulet JF
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):401-10. PubMed ID: 11203848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner.
    Ernst CP; Canbek K; Aksogan K; Willershausen B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Sep; 7(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 12898294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.