263 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11317379)
1. A clinical evaluation of Class II composites placed using a decoupling technique.
Wilson NH; Cowan AJ; Unterbrink G; Wilson MA; Crisp RJ
J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(4):319-29. PubMed ID: 11317379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique.
Baratieri LN; Ritter AV
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2001; 13(1):50-7. PubMed ID: 11831309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Microleakage in class II composite resin restorations: application of a clearing protocol.
Federlin M; Thonemann B; Hiller KA; Fertig C; Schmalz G
Clin Oral Investig; 2002 Jun; 6(2):84-91. PubMed ID: 12166719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
Manhart J; Chen HY; Hickel R
J Adhes Dent; 2010 Jun; 12(3):237-43. PubMed ID: 20157663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices.
Burke FJ; Crisp RJ; Bell TJ; Healy A; Mark B; McBirnie R; Osborne-Smith KL
Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):293-8. PubMed ID: 12066649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations.
Malmström HS; Schlueter M; Roach T; Moss ME
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):373-80. PubMed ID: 12120775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Microleakage in class II composite resin restorations: total bonding and open sandwich technique.
Loguercio AD; Alessandra R; Mazzocco KC; Dias AL; Busato AL; Singer Jda M; Rosa P
J Adhes Dent; 2002; 4(2):137-44. PubMed ID: 12236642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical evaluation of the soft-start (pulse-delay) polymerization technique in Class I and II composite restorations.
Chan DC; Browning WD; Frazier KB; Brackett MG
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(3):265-71. PubMed ID: 18505216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite.
van Dijken JW; Lindberg A
Dent Mater; 2015 Sep; 31(9):1150-8. PubMed ID: 26205382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations.
Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
J Dent; 2015 Dec; 43(12):1547-58. PubMed ID: 26363442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
Krämer N; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug; 17(5):433-41. PubMed ID: 26525008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis.
Hörsted-Bindslev P; Heyde-Petersen B; Simonsen P; Baelum V
Clin Oral Investig; 2005 Dec; 9(4):233-8. PubMed ID: 16133496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Class II composite restorations: importance of cervical enamel in vitro.
Laegreid T; Gjerdet NR; Vult von Steyern P; Johansson AK
Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):187-95. PubMed ID: 21777100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.
Busato AL; Loguercio AD; Reis A; Carrilho MR
Am J Dent; 2001 Oct; 14(5):304-8. PubMed ID: 11803995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
Krämer N; Reinelt C; García-Godoy F; Taschner M; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
Am J Dent; 2009 Aug; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
