295 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]
