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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1345041)

  • 1. Three-year occlusal wear of posterior composite restorations.
    Freilich MA; Goldberg AJ; Gilpatrick RO; Simonsen RJ
    Dent Mater; 1992 Jul; 8(4):224-8. PubMed ID: 1345041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Class II composite resin restorations: a three-year clinical study of six different posterior composites.
    Lundin SA; Andersson B; Koch G; Rasmusson CG
    Swed Dent J; 1990; 14(3):105-14. PubMed ID: 2255989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Proximal wear rates by tooth position of resin composite restorations.
    Wendt SL; Ziemiecki TL; Leinfelder KF
    J Dent; 1996; 24(1-2):33-9. PubMed ID: 8636490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. In vivo occlusal wear of posterior composite restorations.
    Lewis G
    Oper Dent; 1991; 16(2):61-9. PubMed ID: 1803330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.
    Borgia E; Baron R; Borgia JL
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e195-e203. PubMed ID: 28513897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing composite resin wear in primary molars: four-year findings.
    Vann WF; Barkmeier WW; Mahler DB
    J Dent Res; 1988 May; 67(5):876-9. PubMed ID: 2966821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2015 Dec; 43(12):1547-58. PubMed ID: 26363442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin.
    Barnes DM; Blank LW; Thompson VP; Holston AM; Gingell JC
    Quintessence Int; 1991 Feb; 22(2):143-51. PubMed ID: 2068249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Occlusal margin defects around different types of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Bryant RW; Marzbani N; Hodge KV
    Oper Dent; 1992; 17(6):215-21. PubMed ID: 1303514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth.
    Bartlett D; Sundaram G
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(6):613-7. PubMed ID: 17165303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Direct and indirect evaluation of posterior composite restorations at three years.
    Freilich MA; Goldberg AJ; Gilpatrick RO; Simonsen RJ
    Dent Mater; 1992 Jan; 8(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 1521686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Occlusal wear of provisional implant-supported restorations.
    Santing HJ; Kleverlaan CJ; Werner A; Feilzer AJ; Raghoebar GM; Meijer HJ
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Feb; 17(1):179-85. PubMed ID: 23594356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
    Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations.
    Wilder AD; May KN; Bayne SC; Taylor DF; Leinfelder KF
    J Esthet Dent; 1999; 11(3):135-42. PubMed ID: 10825870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.