300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15478486)
1. A two-year comparison of resin-based composite tunnel and Class II restorations in a randomized controlled trial.
Kinomoto Y; Inoue Y; Ebisu S
Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):253-6. PubMed ID: 15478486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
Casagrande L; Dalpian DM; Ardenghi TM; Zanatta FB; Balbinot CE; García-Godoy F; De Araujo FB
Am J Dent; 2013 Dec; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions.
Brackett MG; Dib A; Franco G; Estrada BE; Brackett WW
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 20533626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysis.
Hörsted-Bindslev P; Heyde-Petersen B; Simonsen P; Baelum V
Clin Oral Investig; 2005 Dec; 9(4):233-8. PubMed ID: 16133496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Two-year results with box-only resin composite restorations.
Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Borgmeijer PJ
ASDC J Dent Child; 1995; 62(6):395-400. PubMed ID: 8636474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique.
Baratieri LN; Ritter AV
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2001; 13(1):50-7. PubMed ID: 11831309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results.
Folwaczny M; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):153-6. PubMed ID: 11572293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation.
Mena-Serrano A; Kose C; De Paula EA; Tay LY; Reis A; Loguercio AD; Perdigão J
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2013 Feb; 25(1):55-69. PubMed ID: 23374411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Clinical performance of Class II restorations in which resin composite is laminated over resin-modified glass-ionomer.
Aboush YE; Torabzadeh H
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 11203844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Marginal integrity and secondary caries of selectively excavated teeth in vitro.
Schwendicke F; Kern M; Blunck U; Dörfer C; Drenck J; Paris S
J Dent; 2014 Oct; 42(10):1261-8. PubMed ID: 25132367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical comparison of bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: two-year follow-up.
Yazici AR; Baseren M; Gorucu J
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
[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. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
Krämer N; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug; 17(5):433-41. PubMed ID: 26525008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
Krämer N; Reinelt C; García-Godoy F; Taschner M; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
Am J Dent; 2009 Aug; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: two-year results.
Arhun N; Celik C; Yamanel K
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 20672723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
