109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14989868)
21. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years.
Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Kieri C
Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15241909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions.
Koubi S; Raskin A; Bukiet F; Pignoly C; Toca E; Tassery H
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Nov; 7(5):42-53. PubMed ID: 17091139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. An in vitro comparison of marginal microleakage of alternative restorative treatment and conventional glass ionomer restorations in extracted permanent molars.
Wadenya R; Mante FK
Pediatr Dent; 2007; 29(4):303-7. PubMed ID: 17867395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years.
Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
Am J Dent; 2006 Feb; 19(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 16555660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Factors influencing dentists' choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients.
Vidnes-Kopperud S; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I
Acta Odontol Scand; 2009; 67(2):74-9. PubMed ID: 19085213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation.
Andersson-Wenckert I; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
Acta Odontol Scand; 2006 Nov; 64(6):334-40. PubMed ID: 17123909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 4-year clinical performance and survival analysis of Class I and II compomer restorations in permanent teeth.
Huth KC; Manhart J; Selbertinger A; Paschos E; Kaaden C; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 15241910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall.
Burgess JO; Gallo JR; Ripps AH; Walker RS; Ireland EJ
Am J Dent; 2004 Jun; 17(3):147-50. PubMed ID: 15301207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars.
Eden E; Topaloglu-Ak A; Frencken JE; van't Hof M
Am J Dent; 2006 Dec; 19(6):359-63. PubMed ID: 17212078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). A special tissue preservative and patient-friendly approach].
Frencken JE
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2003 Jun; 110(6):218-22. PubMed ID: 12852056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A one-year clinical evaluation of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars.
Yilmaz Y; Eyuboglu O; Kocogullari ME; Belduz N
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Feb; 7(1):71-8. PubMed ID: 16491149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing.
Magni E; Zhang L; Hickel R; Bossù M; Polimeni A; Ferrari M
J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 18757129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results.
Qvist V; Manscher E; Teglers PT
J Dent; 2004 May; 32(4):285-94. PubMed ID: 15053911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Direct placement restorative materials for use in posterior teeth: the current options.
Lyons K;
N Z Dent J; 2003 Mar; 99(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 15330384
[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. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer tunnel restorations in primary molars: 36 months results.
Markovic D; Peric T
Aust Dent J; 2008 Mar; 53(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 18304240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up.
Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Palma-Dibb RG
J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 31(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 15025658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study.
Scholtanus JD; Huysmans MC
J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):156-62. PubMed ID: 16973253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
