447 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11803995)
1. 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]
2. Clinical performance of Class II restorations in which resin composite is laminated over resin-modified glass-ionomer.
Aboush YE; Torabzadeh H
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 11203844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Three-year clinical performance of a compomer in stress-bearing restorations in permanent posterior teeth.
Huth KC; Manhard J; Hickel R; Kunzelmann KH
Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 14579881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations.
Loguercio AD; Reis A; Rodrigues Filho LE; Busato AL
Oper Dent; 2001; 26(5):427-34. PubMed ID: 11551005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Replacement of resin-based composite: evaluation of cavity design, cavity depth, and shade matching.
Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Shen C
Quintessence Int; 2002 Apr; 33(4):273-8. PubMed ID: 11989376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.
Loguercio AD; Reis A; Hernandez PA; Macedo RP; Busato AL
J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Feb; 33(2):144-51. PubMed ID: 16457675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Microleakage of Class II composite restorations.
Wibowo G; Stockton L
Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):177-85. PubMed ID: 11572297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
Swift EJ; Ritter AV; Heymann HO; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD
Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The effect of rebonding on microleakage of class V aesthetic restorations.
Erhardt MC; Magalhães CS; Serra MC
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):396-402. PubMed ID: 12120778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
Dent Mater; 2008 Jul; 24(7):915-22. PubMed ID: 18155288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation.
Andersson-Wenckert I; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
Acta Odontol Scand; 2006 Nov; 64(6):334-40. PubMed ID: 17123909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Indirect pulp treatment: in vivo outcomes of an adhesive resin system vs calcium hydroxide for protection of the dentin-pulp complex.
Falster CA; Araujo FB; Straffon LH; Nör JE
Pediatr Dent; 2002; 24(3):241-8. PubMed ID: 12064499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Frankenberger R
Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
