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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16580114)

  • 21. A calcium aluminate cement as restorative material in Class V cavities.
    van Dijken JW; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
    Swed Dent J; 2004; 28(3):111-8. PubMed ID: 15506688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in Class III cavities: 5-year results.
    Demirci M; Ersev H; Sancakli HS; Topçubaşi M
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):293-6. PubMed ID: 17073207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations.
    Plotino G; Buono L; Grande NM; Lamorgese V; Somma F
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Mar; 99(3):225-32. PubMed ID: 18319094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of 2 bonding systems and survival of fiber-reinforced composite inlay fixed partial dentures.
    Monaco C; Ferrari M; Caldari M; Baldissara P; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(6):577-85. PubMed ID: 17165297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: a retrospective study.
    Scholtanus JD; Huysmans MC
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):156-62. PubMed ID: 16973253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics.
    Da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Donassollo TA; Cenci MS; Loguércio AD; Moraes RR; Bronkhorst EM; Opdam NJ; Demarco FF
    Dent Mater; 2011 Oct; 27(10):955-63. PubMed ID: 21762980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A three year follow-up of posterior doxadent restorations.
    Van Dijken JW; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
    Swed Dent J; 2005; 29(2):45-51. PubMed ID: 16035347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A four-year clinical evaluation of a highly filled hybrid resin composite in posterior cavities.
    Van Dijken JW; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
    J Adhes Dent; 2005; 7(4):343-9. PubMed ID: 16430017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.
    Sengun A; Cobankara FK; Orucoglu H
    Dent Traumatol; 2008 Apr; 24(2):214-9. PubMed ID: 18352927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Measurement of clinical wear of two packable composites after 6 months in service.
    Blalock JS; Chan DC; Browning WD; Callan R; Hackman S
    J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Jan; 33(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 16409518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Jacquet W; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2009 Mar; 37(3):198-203. PubMed ID: 19131153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison between regional micropush-out and microtensile bond strength of resin composite to dentin.
    Cekic-Nagas I; Ergun G; Nagas E; Tezvergil A; Vallittu PK; Lassila LV
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2008 Apr; 66(2):73-81. PubMed ID: 18446547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite in non-carious Class V lesions: two-year results.
    Turner EW; Shook LW; Ross JA; deRijk W; Eason BC
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 2008; 88(2):20-4; quiz 24-5. PubMed ID: 18593093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Clinical performance and SEM evaluation of direct composite restorations in primary molars.
    Puppin-Rontani RM; de Góes MF; Voelske CE; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):255-61. PubMed ID: 17073199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    Dent Mater; 2013 Feb; 29(2):191-8. PubMed ID: 23063254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Immediate versus water-storage performance of Class V flowable composite restoratives.
    Irie M; Hatanaka K; Suzuki K; Watts DC
    Dent Mater; 2006 Sep; 22(9):875-83. PubMed ID: 16837038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Clinical evaluation of self-etch adhesives in Class V non-carious lesions.
    Abdalla AI; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):289-92. PubMed ID: 17073206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth.
    Can Say E; Kayahan B; Ozel E; Gokce K; Soyman M; Bayirli G
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 May; 7(2):17-25. PubMed ID: 16685291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Fracture resistance of amalgam/glass-polyalkenoate open sandwich Class II restorations: an in vitro study.
    Roberts HW; Vandewalle KS; Charlton DG; Berzins DW
    J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):873-7. PubMed ID: 18692947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical evaluation of a self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Abdalla AI; El Sayed HY
    Am J Dent; 2008 Oct; 21(5):327-30. PubMed ID: 19024260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.