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 *

219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11842911)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Reinelt C; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Dent Mater; 2009 Aug; 25(8):960-8. PubMed ID: 19344946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of 2 bonding systems and survival of fiber-reinforced composite inlay fixed partial dentures.
    Monaco C; Ferrari M; Caldari M; Baldissara P; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(6):577-85. PubMed ID: 17165297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years.
    Krämer N; Ebert J; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2006 Jan; 22(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 16122784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R; Santiago SL; Mendonça JS; Passos VF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations.
    Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):60D-76D. PubMed ID: 11763920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.
    Frankenberger R; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857
    [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. 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]  

  • 15. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 16 years. Part III: effect of luting agent and tooth or tooth-substitute core structure.
    Malament KA; Socransky SS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):511-9. PubMed ID: 11725279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Short-term clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass-ionomer luting cement.
    Yoneda S; Morigami M; Sugizaki J; Yamada T
    Quintessence Int; 2005 Jan; 36(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 15709497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite inlay FPDs.
    Monaco C; Ferrari M; Miceli GP; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(3):319-25. PubMed ID: 12854799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Rubo JH; Santos GC
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 22856680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Clinical and scanning electron microscopic assessments of porcelain and ceromer resin veneers.
    Dhawan P; Prakash H; Shah N
    Indian J Dent Res; 2003; 14(4):264-78. PubMed ID: 15328996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.