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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11000319)

  • 1. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations.
    Raskin A; Setcos JC; Vreven J; Wilson NH
    Clin Oral Investig; 2000 Sep; 4(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 11000319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.
    Borgia E; Baron R; Borgia JL
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e195-e203. PubMed ID: 28513897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report.
    Raskin A; Michotte-Theall B; Vreven J; Wilson NH
    J Dent; 1999 Jan; 27(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 9922607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation.
    Gordan VV; Mjör IA; Vazquez O; Watson RE; Wilson N
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002; 14(5):296-302. PubMed ID: 12405585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Use of rubber dam versus cotton roll isolation on composite resin restorations' survival in primary molars: 2-year results from a non-inferiority clinical trial.
    Olegário IC; Moro BLP; Tedesco TK; Freitas RD; Pássaro AL; Garbim JR; Oliveira R; Mendes FM; ; Raggio DP
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Oct; 22(1):440. PubMed ID: 36217147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations?
    Daudt E; Lopes GC; Vieira LC
    J Adhes Dent; 2013 Feb; 15(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 23534003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
    Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 4-year clinical performance and survival analysis of Class I and II compomer restorations in permanent teeth.
    Huth KC; Manhart J; Selbertinger A; Paschos E; Kaaden C; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 15241910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Watson RE; Mjor IA
    Am J Dent; 2005 Feb; 18(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15810481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Rubber dam usage related to restoration quality and survival.
    Smales RJ
    Br Dent J; 1993 May; 174(9):330-3. PubMed ID: 8484999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite.
    Hayashi M; Wilson NH
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2003 Apr; 111(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 12648268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical performance and margin analysis of ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year.
    Braun AR; Frankenberger R; Krämer N
    Clin Oral Investig; 2001 Sep; 5(3):139-47. PubMed ID: 11642557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A 6-year clinical evaluation of Class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique.
    van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2003 Jul; 19(5):423-8. PubMed ID: 12742438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years.
    Ernst CP; Martin M; Stuff S; Willershausen B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2001 Sep; 5(3):148-55. PubMed ID: 11642558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.