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 *

300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16708724)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM; Hamama HH
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Aug; 10(4):315-22. PubMed ID: 18792703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Marginal adaptation of ormocer-, silorane-, and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems bonded to dentin cavities after water storage.
    Mahmoud SH; Al-Wakeel Eel S
    Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(10):e131-9. PubMed ID: 22026005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities.
    Yazici AR; Ozgünaltay G; Dayangaç B
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(6):773-8. PubMed ID: 14653293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. [Restoration of Class V cavities with the Ormocer-based filling system Admira].
    Hennig AC; Helbig EB; Haufe E; Richter G; Klimm HW
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2004; 114(2):104-14. PubMed ID: 15119705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with class II MOD cavities restored with Ormocer, Nanofilled, and Nanoceramic composite restorative systems.
    Taha DG; Abdel-Samad AA; Mahmoud SH
    Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(7):579-87. PubMed ID: 21716986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y
    Am J Dent; 2006 Aug; 19(4):236-40. PubMed ID: 16939030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effects of flowable resin on bond strength and gap formation in Class I restorations.
    Miguez PA; Pereira PN; Foxton RM; Walter R; Nunes MF; Swift EJ
    Dent Mater; 2004 Nov; 20(9):839-45. PubMed ID: 15451239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.