430 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12740693)
1. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation.
Pallesen U; Qvist V
Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Jun; 7(2):71-9. PubMed ID: 12740693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.
van Dijken JW
J Dent; 2000 Jul; 28(5):299-306. PubMed ID: 10785294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite.
van Dijken JW; Lindberg A
Dent Mater; 2015 Sep; 31(9):1150-8. PubMed ID: 26205382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
van Dijken JW
J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.
Huth KC; Chen HY; Mehl A; Hickel R; Manhart J
J Dent; 2011 Jul; 39(7):478-88. PubMed ID: 21554920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of stresses in molar teeth restored with inlays and direct restorations, including polymerization shrinkage of composite resin and tooth loading during mastication.
Dejak B; Młotkowski A
Dent Mater; 2015 Mar; 31(3):e77-87. PubMed ID: 25544104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays.
Thordrup M; Isidor F; Hörsted-Bindslev P
Quintessence Int; 2001 Mar; 32(3):199-205. PubMed ID: 12066659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with onlays of three contemporary tooth-colored resin-bonded restorative materials.
Brunton PA; Cattell P; Burke FJ; Wilson NH
J Prosthet Dent; 1999 Aug; 82(2):167-71. PubMed ID: 10424979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 16956709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded composite inlays: a 3-year study.
Barone A; Derchi G; Rossi A; Marconcini S; Covani U
Quintessence Int; 2008 Jan; 39(1):65-71. PubMed ID: 18551219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. One-year clinical evaluation of composite fillings and inlays in posterior teeth.
Scheibenbogen A; Manhart J; Kunzelmann KH; Kremers L; Benz C; Hickel R
Clin Oral Investig; 1997 Jun; 1(2):65-70. PubMed ID: 9552820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
Cetin AR; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N
Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):E1-11. PubMed ID: 23215545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. A clinical evaluation of Class II composites placed using a decoupling technique.
Wilson NH; Cowan AJ; Unterbrink G; Wilson MA; Crisp RJ
J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(4):319-29. PubMed ID: 11317379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
