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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1289954)

  • 1. Clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations.
    Johnson GH; Bales DJ; Gordon GE; Powell LV
    Quintessence Int; 1992 Oct; 23(10):705-11. PubMed ID: 1289954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Occlusal glass ionomer cermet, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations: a 2-year clinical study.
    Lidums A; Wilkie R; Smales R
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 7803005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Factors associated with clinical success of cervical abrasion/erosion restorations.
    Powell LV; Johnson GH; Gordon GE
    Oper Dent; 1995; 20(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 8700767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations.
    Malmström HS; Schlueter M; Roach T; Moss ME
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):373-80. PubMed ID: 12120775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years.
    Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results.
    Rasmusson CG; Lundin SA
    Swed Dent J; 1995; 19(5):173-82. PubMed ID: 8614898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years.
    Donly KJ; Jensen ME; Triolo P; Chan D
    Quintessence Int; 1999 Mar; 30(3):163-8. PubMed ID: 10356568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical evaluation of a posterior resin composite: 3-year results.
    Wendt SL; Leinfelder KF
    Am J Dent; 1994 Aug; 7(4):207-11. PubMed ID: 7986437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of wear and clinical performance between amalgam, composite and open sandwich restorations: 2-year results.
    Sachdeo A; Gray GB; Sulieman MA; Jagger DC
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2004 Mar; 12(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 15058177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Studies on posterior composite resins with special reference to class II restorations.
    Lundin SA
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1990; 73():1-41. PubMed ID: 2264013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Mönting JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):259-64. PubMed ID: 11203828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of an adhesive bonding system on wear resistance of resin composite restorations.
    Shinkai K; Suzuki S; Katoh Y
    Quintessence Int; 1997 Oct; 28(10):687-93. PubMed ID: 9477890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Buchalla W; Mönting JS
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 11572292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.