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 *

234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12673433)

  • 1. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A multipractice clinical evaluation of an ORMOCER restorative--2-year results.
    Rosin M; Schwahn C; Kordass B; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Quintessence Int; 2007 Jun; 38(6):e306-15. PubMed ID: 17625618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM; Hamama HH
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Aug; 10(4):315-22. PubMed ID: 18792703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y; Koray F
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling.
    Kournetas N; Chakmakchi M; Kakaboura A; Rahiotis C; Geis-Gerstorfer J
    Clin Oral Investig; 2004 Sep; 8(3):123-9. PubMed ID: 15248053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Impact of refrigeration of different Resin composite restorative materials on the marginal adaptation in class II restorations.
    El-Maksoud OA; Hamama H; Wafaie RA; El-Wassefy N; Mahmoud SH
    BMC Oral Health; 2024 Oct; 24(1):1174. PubMed ID: 39363215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in Class I and II restorations: 2-year results.
    Lundin SA; Rasmusson CG
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Oct; 35(9):758-62. PubMed ID: 15471000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
    Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of Dyract AP restorative in permanent molars: 2-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Smales RJ; Wei SH
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):403-6. PubMed ID: 12691278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Wei SH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(1):32-42. PubMed ID: 23614660
    [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 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]  

  • 15. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement.
    Dukic W; Dukic OL; Milardovic S; Delija B
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(2):156-64. PubMed ID: 20420058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives.
    Aw TC; Lepe X; Johnson GH; Mancl LA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Mar; 136(3):311-22. PubMed ID: 15819344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.
    Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Watson RE; Garvan C; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 May; 138(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 17473040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in class III cavities: three-year results.
    Demirci M; Ersev H; Uçok M
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(3):223-30. PubMed ID: 12022451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Two-year performance of glass-ceramic insert-resin composite restorations: clinical and scanning electron microscopic evaluation.
    Kiremitçi A; Bolay S; Gürgan S
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Jul; 29(7):417-21. PubMed ID: 9759057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.