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 *

405 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15058177)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.
    Wucher M; Grobler SR; Senekal PJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):274-8. PubMed ID: 12572648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results.
    Cehreli ZC; Cetinguc A; Cengiz SB; Altay AN
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):262-6. PubMed ID: 17073200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The clinical evaluation of a single-bottle adhesive system with three restorative materials in children: six-month results.
    Baghdadi ZD
    Gen Dent; 2005; 53(5):357-65; quiz 366-8. PubMed ID: 16252540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. A clinical study of the "open sandwich" technique in pediatric dental practice.
    Cannon ML
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2003; 70(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 12762613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth.
    Hickel R; Kaaden C; Paschos E; Buerkle V; García-Godoy F; Manhart J
    Am J Dent; 2005 Jun; 18(3):198-211. PubMed ID: 16158813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up.
    Pollington S; van Noort R
    Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 18435377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations.
    Qin M; Liu H
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(5):580-7. PubMed ID: 16268391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Microleakage and wall adaptation of conservative restorations.
    Guelmann M; Bonnin S; Primosch RE; Söderholm KJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):407-11. PubMed ID: 12691279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass-lonomer and resin composite restorations.
    Brackett WW; Dib A; Brackett MG; Reyes AA; Estrada BE
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):477-81. PubMed ID: 14531590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. One-year clinical evaluation of compomer restorations placed in general practice.
    Crisp RJ; Burke FJ
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Mar; 31(3):181-6. PubMed ID: 11203923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months.
    Gao W; Peng D; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jan; 34(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 12674356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.