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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16555657)

  • 21. Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall.
    Burgess JO; Gallo JR; Ripps AH; Walker RS; Ireland EJ
    Am J Dent; 2004 Jun; 17(3):147-50. PubMed ID: 15301207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Cervical compomer restorations: the role of cavity etching in a 48-month clinical evaluation.
    Di Lenarda R; Cadenaro M; De Stefano Dorigo E
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):382-7. PubMed ID: 11203846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite under different conditioning methods in primary teeth.
    Turgut MD; Tekçiçek M; Olmez S
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 15470873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 16956709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings.
    Demarco FF; Cenci MS; Lima FG; Donassollo TA; André Dde A; Leida FL
    J Dent; 2007 Mar; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in Class I and II restorations: 2-year results.
    Lundin SA; Rasmusson CG
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Oct; 35(9):758-62. PubMed ID: 15471000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Three-year prospective clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a nanofiller hybrid resin composite in Class V lesions.
    Preussker S; Pöschmann M; Kensche A; Natusch I; Koch R; Klimm W; Hannig C
    Am J Dent; 2014 Apr; 27(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 25000664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
    Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 12744410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up.
    Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Palma-Dibb RG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 31(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 15025658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. One-year clinical evaluation of two composite materials used for anterior class V restorations.
    Sakrana AA; Tanoue N; Kawasaki K; Matsumura H
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Oct; 31(10):985-90. PubMed ID: 15387839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.