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)

  • 21. [Restoration of Class V cavities with the Ormocer-based filling system Admira].
    Hennig AC; Helbig EB; Haufe E; Richter G; Klimm HW
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2004; 114(2):104-14. PubMed ID: 15119705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Franco G; Estrada BE; Brackett WW
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 20533626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Flowable bulk-fill versus layering restorative material on Class II restorations: A randomized clinical trial.
    Torres CRG; Mailart MC; Moecke SE; Matuda AGN; Veloso SM; da Silva Ávila DM; Nicoló RD; Borges AB
    J Dent; 2024 Sep; 148():105154. PubMed ID: 38942111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
    Stavridakis MM; Kakaboura AI; Ardu S; Krejci I
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Clinical performance of a two-step self-etch adhesive with additional enamel etching in Class III cavities.
    Ermis RB; Temel UB; Cellik EU; Kam O
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(2):147-55. PubMed ID: 20420057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis.
    Ritter AV; Heymann HO; Swift EJ; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(4):370-8. PubMed ID: 18666493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparative clinical evaluation of different treatment approaches using a microfilled resin composite and a compomer in Class III cavities: two-year results.
    Demirci M; Yildiz E; Uysal O
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 18335727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.
    Yazici AR; Ustunkol I; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(3):248-55. PubMed ID: 24754716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Microleakage of different resin composite types.
    Yazici AR; Celik C; Ozgünaltay G
    Quintessence Int; 2004; 35(10):790-4. PubMed ID: 15553287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations.
    Vilkinis V; Hörsted-Bindslev P; Baelum V
    Clin Oral Investig; 2000 Sep; 4(3):133-9. PubMed ID: 11000317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Watson RE; Mjor IA
    Am J Dent; 2005 Feb; 18(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15810481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
    Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years.
    Ernst CP; Buhtz C; Rissing C; Willershausen B
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2002 Aug; 23(8):711-4, 716-7, 720 passim; quiz 726. PubMed ID: 12244738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Three-year prospective clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a nanofiller hybrid resin composite in Class V lesions.
    Preussker S; Pöschmann M; Kensche A; Natusch I; Koch R; Klimm W; Hannig C
    Am J Dent; 2014 Apr; 27(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 25000664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
    Krejci I; Besek M; Lutz F
    Am J Dent; 1994 Feb; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 9115675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Two-year clinical evaluation of Dyract in small Class I cavities.
    Demirci M; Uçok M
    Am J Dent; 2002 Oct; 15(5):312-6. PubMed ID: 12537341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.