214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11203902)
21. 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]
22. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: two-year clinical follow up.
Coelho Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
Oper Dent; 2004; 29(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 15088722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months.
Gao W; Peng D; Smales RJ; Yip KH
Quintessence Int; 2003 Jan; 34(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 12674356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite.
Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Frankenberger R
J Dent; 2009 Nov; 37(11):813-9. PubMed ID: 19744761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. An 11-year clinical evaluation of leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic crowns: a retrospective study.
Fradeani M; Redemagni M
Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):503-10. PubMed ID: 12165985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. All-ceramic partial coverage restorations--midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical splitmouth study.
Guess PC; Strub JR; Steinhart N; Wolkewitz M; Stappert CF
J Dent; 2009 Aug; 37(8):627-37. PubMed ID: 19477570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results.
Pascon FM; Kantovitz KR; Caldo-Teixeira AS; Borges AF; Silva TN; Puppin-Rontani RM; Garcia-Godoy F
J Dent; 2006 Jul; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. A 2-year clinical follow-up study of IPS Empress ceramic inlays.
Tidehag P; Gunne J
Int J Prosthodont; 1995; 8(5):456-60. PubMed ID: 8595103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years.
Krämer N; Frankenberger R
Dent Mater; 2005 Mar; 21(3):262-71. PubMed ID: 15705433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites.
Krämer N; Frankenberger R
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):466-72. PubMed ID: 11203858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years.
Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
Quintessence Int; 2005 May; 36(5):365-72. PubMed ID: 15892534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Reduction of marginal gaps in composite restorations by use of glass-ceramic inserts.
George LA; Richards ND; Eichmiller FC
Oper Dent; 1995; 20(4):151-4. PubMed ID: 8700783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays.
Otto T; De Nisco S
Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 11951800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer.
Monaco C; Baldissara P; dall'Orologio GD; Scotti R
Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11842911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays.
Thordrup M; Isidor F; Hörsted-Bindslev P
Quintessence Int; 2001 Mar; 32(3):199-205. PubMed ID: 12066659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A prospective clinical study of ceromer inlays: results up to 53 months.
Kükrer D; Gemalmaz D; Kuybulu EO; Bozkurt FO
Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 15008227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 12744410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
Manhart J; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11005901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
