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)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins: two-year results.
    Lopes LG; Cefaly DF; Franco EB; Mondelli RF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Sep; 7(3):123-8. PubMed ID: 12915962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. An eighteen-month clinical evaluation of posterior restorations with fluoride releasing adhesive and composite systems.
    Akimoto N; Ohmori K; Hanabusa M; Momoi Y
    Dent Mater J; 2011; 30(3):411-8. PubMed ID: 21597208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.
    Balkaya H; Arslan S; Pala K
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2019; 27():e20180678. PubMed ID: 31596369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.
    Wassell RW; Walls AW; McCabe JF
    J Dent; 2000 Aug; 28(6):375-82. PubMed ID: 10856800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices.
    Burke FJ; Crisp RJ; Bell TJ; Healy A; Mark B; McBirnie R; Osborne-Smith KL
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):293-8. PubMed ID: 12066649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: effect of adhesive systems.
    Sundfeld RH; Scatolin RS; Oliveira FG; Machado LS; Alexandre RS; Sundefeld ML
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities.
    Schirrmeister JF; Huber K; Hellwig E; Hahn P
    J Adhes Dent; 2009 Oct; 11(5):399-404. PubMed ID: 19841767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.
    Borgia E; Baron R; Borgia JL
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e195-e203. PubMed ID: 28513897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations.
    Ozer F; Irmak O; Yakymiv O; Mohammed A; Pande R; Saleh N; Blatz M
    Oper Dent; 2021 Jan; 46(1):E60-E67. PubMed ID: 33882138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope.
    Heintze SD; Monreal D; Peschke A
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Apr; 17(2):147-54. PubMed ID: 25893223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Meta-Analysis of the Influence of Bonding Parameters on the Clinical Outcome of Tooth-colored Cervical Restorations.
    Mahn E; Rousson V; Heintze S
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug; 17(5):391-403. PubMed ID: 26525003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.