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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15248053)

  • 1. Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling.
    Kournetas N; Chakmakchi M; Kakaboura A; Rahiotis C; Geis-Gerstorfer J
    Clin Oral Investig; 2004 Sep; 8(3):123-9. PubMed ID: 15248053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Marginal adaptation of ormocer-, silorane-, and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems bonded to dentin cavities after water storage.
    Mahmoud SH; Al-Wakeel Eel S
    Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(10):e131-9. PubMed ID: 22026005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of refrigeration of different Resin composite restorative materials on the marginal adaptation in class II restorations.
    El-Maksoud OA; Hamama H; Wafaie RA; El-Wassefy N; Mahmoud SH
    BMC Oral Health; 2024 Oct; 24(1):1174. PubMed ID: 39363215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
    Stavridakis MM; Kakaboura AI; Ardu S; Krejci I
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with class II MOD cavities restored with Ormocer, Nanofilled, and Nanoceramic composite restorative systems.
    Taha DG; Abdel-Samad AA; Mahmoud SH
    Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(7):579-87. PubMed ID: 21716986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities.
    Yazici AR; Ozgünaltay G; Dayangaç B
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(6):773-8. PubMed ID: 14653293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y; Koray F
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Marginal behaviour of self-etch adhesive/composite and combined amalgam-composite restorations.
    Kournetas N; Kakaboura A; Giftopoulos D; Chakmachi M; Rahiotis C; Geis-Gerstorfer J
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2010 Jun; 18(2):70-7. PubMed ID: 20698421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials.
    Gerdolle DA; Mortier E; Droz D
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2008; 75(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 18647507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Flowable materials as an intermediate layer could improve the marginal and internal adaptation of composite restorations in Class-V-cavities.
    Li Q; Jepsen S; Albers HK; Eberhard J
    Dent Mater; 2006 Mar; 22(3):250-7. PubMed ID: 16084584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Microleakage of different resin composite types.
    Yazici AR; Celik C; Ozgünaltay G
    Quintessence Int; 2004; 35(10):790-4. PubMed ID: 15553287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM; Hamama HH
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Aug; 10(4):315-22. PubMed ID: 18792703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. In vitro investigation of the performance of different restorative materials under cast circumferential clasps for removable dental prostheses.
    Pospiech P; Nagel F; Gebhart F; Nothdurft FP; Mitov G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Dec; 16(6):1659-67. PubMed ID: 22173722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Marginal adaptation of heat-pressed glass-ceramic veneers to Class 3 composite restorations in vitro.
    Christgau M; Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Edelmann K
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(4):233-44. PubMed ID: 10823069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations.
    Aggarwal V; Logani A; Jain V; Shah N
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):587-92. PubMed ID: 18833866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Directed polymerization shrinkage versus a horizontal incremental filling technique: interfacial adaptation in vivo in Class II cavities.
    van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P; Waern R
    Am J Dent; 1998 Aug; 11(4):165-72. PubMed ID: 10388370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.