282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12898294)
1. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner.
Ernst CP; Canbek K; Aksogan K; Willershausen B
Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Sep; 7(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 12898294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite.
Ernst CP; Brandenbusch M; Meyer G; Canbek K; Gottschalk F; Willershausen B
Clin Oral Investig; 2006 Jun; 10(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 16555069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions.
Loguercio AD; Reis A; Barbosa AN; Roulet JF
J Adhes Dent; 2003; 5(4):323-32. PubMed ID: 15008339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hinkel R
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years.
Ernst CP; Martin M; Stuff S; Willershausen B
Clin Oral Investig; 2001 Sep; 5(3):148-55. PubMed ID: 11642558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
Sadeghi M; Lynch CD; Shahamat N
J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of a one-step, self-etch adhesive with and without an intermediary layer of a flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation.
Boeckler A; Schaller HG; Gernhardt CR
Quintessence Int; 2012 Apr; 43(4):279-86. PubMed ID: 22532941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite.
Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Sep; 134(9):1205-12. PubMed ID: 14528992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Clinical efficacy of veneered zirconium dioxide-based posterior partial fixed dental prostheses: five-year results.
Raigrodski AJ; Yu A; Chiche GJ; Hochstedler JL; Mancl LA; Mohamed SE
J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Oct; 108(4):214-22. PubMed ID: 23031727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Three-year clinical evaluation of class II posterior composite restorations placed with different techniques and flowable composite linings in endodontically treated teeth.
Karaman E; Keskin B; Inan U
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Mar; 21(2):709-716. PubMed ID: 27538739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of the mechanical and physical properties of a posterior resin composite in posterior adult teeth.
Agbaje LO; Shaba OP; Adegbulugbe IC
Niger J Clin Pract; 2010 Dec; 13(4):431-5. PubMed ID: 21220860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
