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 *

301 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15478486)

  • 21. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
    Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical Performance and Epidemiologic Aspects of Fractured Anterior Teeth Restored with a Composite Resin: A Two-Year Clinical Study.
    Vural UK; Kiremitçi A; Gökalp S
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e204-e209. PubMed ID: 28960769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2015 Oct; 31(10):1232-44. PubMed ID: 26321155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Moretto SG; Russo EM; Carvalho RC; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Cardoso MV
    J Dent; 2013 Aug; 41(8):675-82. PubMed ID: 23747824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Class I restoration margin quality in direct resin composites: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.
    Femiano F; Femiano L; Femiano R; Lanza A; Lanza M; Rullo R; Perillo L
    Am J Dent; 2015 Jun; 28(3):157-60. PubMed ID: 26201227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of new generation surface sealants on the marginal permeability of Class V resin composite restorations.
    Owens BM; Johnson WW
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):481-8. PubMed ID: 16924989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Tunnel restorations. A 3 1/2-year follow up study of Class I and II tunnel restorations in permanent and primary teeth.
    Hasselrot L
    Swed Dent J; 1993; 17(5):173-82. PubMed ID: 8291027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.
    Busato AL; Loguercio AD; Reis A; Carrilho MR
    Am J Dent; 2001 Oct; 14(5):304-8. PubMed ID: 11803995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up.
    Pollington S; van Noort R
    Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 18435377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Three-year clinical evaluation of a flowable and a hybrid resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Kubo S; Yokota H; Yokota H; Hayashi Y
    J Dent; 2010 Mar; 38(3):191-200. PubMed ID: 19840829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Hickel R
    J Adhes Dent; 2010 Jun; 12(3):237-43. PubMed ID: 20157663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite.
    van Dijken JW; Lindberg A
    Dent Mater; 2015 Sep; 31(9):1150-8. PubMed ID: 26205382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Feb; 17(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 25625133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
    Alves dos Santos MP; Luiz RR; Maia LC
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
    Ermiş RB
    Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.