179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1507089)
1. Clinical evaluation of a composite resin system with a dentin bonding agent for restoration of permanent posterior teeth: a 3-year study.
Roberts MW; Folio J; Moffa JP; Guckes AD
J Prosthet Dent; 1992 Mar; 67(3):301-6. PubMed ID: 1507089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis.
Heintze SD; Rousson V
J Adhes Dent; 2012 Aug; 14(5):407-31. PubMed ID: 23082310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings.
Collins CJ; Bryant RW; Hodge KL
J Dent; 1998 May; 26(4):311-7. PubMed ID: 9611936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. In vivo and in vitro evaluations of microleakage around Class I amalgam and composite restorations.
Alptekin T; Ozer F; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N; Blatz MB
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):641-8. PubMed ID: 21180003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A 5-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam.
Norman RD; Wright JS; Rydberg RJ; Felkner LL
J Prosthet Dent; 1990 Nov; 64(5):523-9. PubMed ID: 2090809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Bond strength comparison of amalgam repair protocols using resin composite in situations with and without dentin exposure.
Ozcan M; Schoonbeek G; Gökçe B; Cömlekoglu E; Dündar M
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):655-62. PubMed ID: 21180005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Factors relating to usage patterns of amalgam and resin composite for posterior restorations--a prospective analysis.
Khalaf ME; Alomari QD; Omar R
J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):785-92. PubMed ID: 24769386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The performance of bonded vs. pin-retained complex amalgam restorations: a five-year clinical evaluation.
Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Berry TG; Robbins JW; Osborne JW; Haveman CW
J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Jul; 132(7):923-31. PubMed ID: 11480646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Support of undermined occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials.
Latino C; Troendle K; Summitt JB
Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):287-91. PubMed ID: 12066648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
[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. The prevalence of postoperative sensitivity in teeth restored with Class II composite resin restorations.
Borgmeijer PJ; Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Gruythuysen RJ
ASDC J Dent Child; 1991; 58(5):378-83. PubMed ID: 1939803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Periapical status of non-root-filled teeth with resin composite, amalgam, or full crown restorations: a cross-sectional study of a Swedish adult population.
Dawson V; Petersson K; Wolf E; Akerman S
J Endod; 2014 Sep; 40(9):1303-8. PubMed ID: 25043330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
