169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15709496)
1. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report.
de Souza FB; Guimarães RP; Silva CH
Quintessence Int; 2005 Jan; 36(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 15709496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
Gianordoli Neto R; Santiago SL; Mendonça JS; Passos VF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
Sadeghi M; Lynch CD; Shahamat N
J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.
Loguercio AD; Reis A; Hernandez PA; Macedo RP; Busato AL
J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Feb; 33(2):144-51. PubMed ID: 16457675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
Dresch W; Volpato S; Gomes JC; Ribeiro NR; Reis A; Loguercio AD
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 16924980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years.
Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
Quintessence Int; 2005 May; 36(5):365-72. PubMed ID: 15892534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
Swift EJ; Ritter AV; Heymann HO; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD
Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material.
Gordan VV; Shen C; Watson RE; Mjor IA
Am J Dent; 2005 Feb; 18(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15810481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical evaluation of Dyract AP restorative in permanent molars: 2-year results.
Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Smales RJ; Wei SH
Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):403-6. PubMed ID: 12691278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. One-year clinical evaluation of SureFil packable composite.
Perry R; Kugel G; Leinfelder K
Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Jun; 20(6):544-50, 552-3. PubMed ID: 10650367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical evaluation of two packable resin-based composite restorations: a three-year report.
Torres CR; Borges AB; Goncalves SE; Pucci CR; de Araujo MA; Barcellos DC
Gen Dent; 2010; 58(4):338-43. PubMed ID: 20591781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Fracture resistance of class II packable composite restorations with and without flowable liners.
Ozgünaltay G; Görücü J
J Oral Rehabil; 2005 Feb; 32(2):111-5. PubMed ID: 15641976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
