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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16536345)

  • 1. Two-centre evaluation of a resin composite/ self-etching restorative system: three-year findings.
    Wilson NH; Gordan VV; Brunton PA; Wilson MA; Crisp RJ; Mjör IA
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Feb; 8(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 16536345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation.
    Gordan VV; Mjör IA; Vazquez O; Watson RE; Wilson N
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002; 14(5):296-302. PubMed ID: 12405585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.
    Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Watson RE; Garvan C; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 May; 138(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 17473040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical evaluation of Giomer and self-etch adhesive compared with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive - Results at 8 years.
    Tian F; Mu H; Shi Y; Chen X; Zou X; Gao X; Wang X
    Dent Mater; 2024 Jul; 40(7):1088-1095. PubMed ID: 38806383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
    Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
    Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches.
    Baracco B; Fuentes MV; Ceballos L
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Jun; 20(5):991-1001. PubMed ID: 26388406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Two-year clinical performance of occlusal and cervical giomer restorations.
    Sunico MC; Shinkai K; Katoh Y
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(3):282-9. PubMed ID: 15986946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.
    Yazici AR; Ustunkol I; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(3):248-55. PubMed ID: 24754716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years.
    Poon EC; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1533-40. PubMed ID: 16329416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Five-year clinical performance of two fluoride-releasing giomer resin materials in occlusal restorations.
    Ozer F; Patel R; Yip J; Yakymiv O; Saleh N; Blatz MB
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1213-1220. PubMed ID: 35934807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Noncarious class V lesions restored with a polyacid modified resin composite and a nanocomposite: a two-year clinical trial.
    Türkün LS; Celik EU
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):399-405. PubMed ID: 19058687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.
    Karaman E; Yazici AR; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    J Adhes Dent; 2012 Aug; 14(5):485-92. PubMed ID: 22724113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.