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: 15470871)

  • 21. The longevity of resin-based composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Hondrum SO
    Gen Dent; 2000; 48(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 11199613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Tunnel restorations in permanent teeth. A 7 year follow up study.
    Hasselrot L
    Swed Dent J; 1998; 22(1-2):1-7. PubMed ID: 9646387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth.
    Bartlett D; Sundaram G
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(6):613-7. PubMed ID: 17165303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Wei SH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study.
    Papagiannoulis L; Kakaboura A; Pantaleon F; Kavvadia K
    Pediatr Dent; 1999; 21(4):231-4. PubMed ID: 10436476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. In vitro evaluation of push-out bond strength of direct ceramic inlays to tooth surface with fiber-reinforced composite at the interface.
    Cekic I; Ergun G; Uctasli S; Lassila LV
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 May; 97(5):271-8. PubMed ID: 17547945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam.
    Roulet JF
    J Dent; 1997 Nov; 25(6):459-73. PubMed ID: 9604577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Treatment of proximal caries lesions by tunnel restorations.
    Wiegand A; Attin T
    Dent Mater; 2007 Dec; 23(12):1461-7. PubMed ID: 17320944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Clinical performance of all-ceramic inlay and onlay restorations in posterior teeth.
    Beier US; Kapferer I; Burtscher D; Giesinger JM; Dumfahrt H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(4):395-402. PubMed ID: 22720292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom.
    Burke FJ; Cheung SW; Mjör IA; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 1999 Apr; 30(4):234-42. PubMed ID: 10635250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure.
    Kopperud SE; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2012 Dec; 120(6):539-48. PubMed ID: 23167471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics.
    Da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Donassollo TA; Cenci MS; Loguércio AD; Moraes RR; Bronkhorst EM; Opdam NJ; Demarco FF
    Dent Mater; 2011 Oct; 27(10):955-63. PubMed ID: 21762980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 16 years. Part III: effect of luting agent and tooth or tooth-substitute core structure.
    Malament KA; Socransky SS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):511-9. PubMed ID: 11725279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.
    Frankenberger R; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students.
    Opdam NJ; Loomans BA; Roeters FJ; Bronkhorst EM
    J Dent; 2004 Jul; 32(5):379-83. PubMed ID: 15193786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Kawamura Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.