179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1507089)
21. 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]
22. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.
Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
Dent Mater; 2007 Jan; 23(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 16417916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A clinical study of adhesive amalgam in pediatric dental practice.
Cannon ML; Tylka JA; Sandrik J
Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Apr; 20(4):331-4, 336, 338 passim; quiz 344. PubMed ID: 11692340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations: effect of thermal cycling.
Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M; Theodoridou-Pahini S; Papadogiannis Y; Karezis A
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):316-23. PubMed ID: 11203837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure.
Hickel R; Manhart J
J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(1):45-64. PubMed ID: 11317384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Microleakage and retention of bonded amalgam restorations.
Winkler MM; Moore BK; Rhodes B; Swartz M
Am J Dent; 2000 Oct; 13(5):245-50. PubMed ID: 11764110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin on the microleakage of posterior restorations.
Araujo Fde O; Vieira LC; Monteiro Junior S
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(5):556-61. PubMed ID: 17024943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
van Dijken JW
J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Teaching of direct posterior resin composite restorations in UK dental therapy training programmes.
Lynch CD; Wilson NH
Br Dent J; 2010 May; 208(9):415-21. PubMed ID: 20448613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-olds attending Public Dental Service-A 13-year observation.
Palotie U; Eronen AK; Vehkalahti K; Vehkalahti MM
J Dent; 2017 Jul; 62():13-17. PubMed ID: 28529175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A clinical evaluation of Class II composites placed using a decoupling technique.
Wilson NH; Cowan AJ; Unterbrink G; Wilson MA; Crisp RJ
J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(4):319-29. PubMed ID: 11317379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Two-year clinical study on postoperative pulpal complications arising from the absence of a glass-ionomer lining in deep occlusal resin-composite restorations.
Banomyong D; Messer H
J Investig Clin Dent; 2013 Nov; 4(4):265-70. PubMed ID: 23355492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations.
Setcos JC; Staninec M; Wilson NH
J Adhes Dent; 1999; 1(4):323-31. PubMed ID: 11725662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner.
Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Microleakage of light-cured resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer dentin bonding agents applied with co-cure vs pre-cure technique.
Tulunoglu O; Uçtaşh M; Alaçam A; Omürlü H
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):292-8. PubMed ID: 11203833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Effect of pulp protection technique on the clinical performance of amalgam restorations: three-year results.
Baratieri LN; Machado A; Van Noort R; Ritter AV; Baratieri NM
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 12120767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students.
Naghipur S; Pesun I; Nowakowski A; Kim A
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):336-9. PubMed ID: 27086110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
