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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12523243)

  • 21. The use of resin-based composite restorations in pulpotomized primary molars.
    Caceda JH
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2007; 74(2):147-50. PubMed ID: 18477438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effect of resin viscosity and enamel beveling on the clinical performance of Class V composite restorations: three-year results.
    Baratieri LN; Canabarro S; Lopes GC; Ritter AV
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):482-7. PubMed ID: 14531591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Comparison of marginal microleakage of flowable composite restorations in primary molars prepared by high-speed carbide bur, Er:YAG laser, and air abrasion.
    Borsatto MC; Corona SA; Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; de Sá Rocha RA; Pecora JD; Palma-Dibb RG
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2006; 73(2):122-6. PubMed ID: 16948375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Koubi S; Raskin A; Bukiet F; Pignoly C; Toca E; Tassery H
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Nov; 7(5):42-53. PubMed ID: 17091139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.
    Sengun A; Cobankara FK; Orucoglu H
    Dent Traumatol; 2008 Apr; 24(2):214-9. PubMed ID: 18352927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions.
    Peumans M; Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2005 Dec; 113(6):512-8. PubMed ID: 16324142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Not Available].
    Attin T; Tauböck TT
    Swiss Dent J; 2017; 127(2):131-143. PubMed ID: 28266686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Evaluation of proximal contacts of posterior composite restorations with 4 placement techniques.
    El-Badrawy WA; Leung BW; El-Mowafy O; Rubo JH; Rubo MH
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2003 Mar; 69(3):162-7. PubMed ID: 12622881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars.
    Eden E; Topaloglu-Ak A; Frencken JE; van't Hof M
    Am J Dent; 2006 Dec; 19(6):359-63. PubMed ID: 17212078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effect of bonded restorations on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth.
    Sagsen B; Aslan B
    Int Endod J; 2006 Nov; 39(11):900-4. PubMed ID: 17014529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical performance and SEM evaluation of direct composite restorations in primary molars.
    Puppin-Rontani RM; de Góes MF; Voelske CE; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):255-61. PubMed ID: 17073199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel.
    Van Meerbeek B; Kanumilli P; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Lambrechts P; Peumans M
    Dent Mater; 2005 Apr; 21(4):375-83. PubMed ID: 15766585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Five-year clinical evaluation of One-Up Bond F in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Burrow MF; Tyas MJ
    Am J Dent; 2007 Dec; 20(6):361-4. PubMed ID: 18269125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Repair and revision 2. Repair or replacement of composite].
    Opdam NJ
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2001 Mar; 108(3):90-3. PubMed ID: 11383352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical performance of a self-etch adhesive in Class V restorations made with and without acid etching.
    Abdalla AI; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Dent; 2007 Jul; 35(7):558-63. PubMed ID: 17467137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.
    Wucher M; Grobler SR; Senekal PJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):274-8. PubMed ID: 12572648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up.
    Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Palma-Dibb RG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 31(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 15025658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Endodontic complications after plastic restorations in general practice.
    Whitworth JM; Myers PM; Smith J; Walls AW; McCabe JF
    Int Endod J; 2005 Jun; 38(6):409-16. PubMed ID: 15910477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Simplifying direct composite resin restorations in the aesthetic zone.
    Shuman IE
    Dent Today; 2009 Feb; 28(2):146, 148-9. PubMed ID: 19275086
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.