204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16924980)
1. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
Dresch W; Volpato S; Gomes JC; Ribeiro NR; Reis A; Loguercio AD
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 16924980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.
Loguercio AD; Reis A; Hernandez PA; Macedo RP; Busato AL
J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Feb; 33(2):144-51. PubMed ID: 16457675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
Sadeghi M; Lynch CD; Shahamat N
J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A 24-month follow-up of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in non-carious cervical lesions.
Reis A; Loguercio AD
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(5):523-9. PubMed ID: 17024938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation.
Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM
Oper Dent; 2014; 39(1):32-42. PubMed ID: 23614660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Wei SH
Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in class III restorations.
Loguercio AD; Lorini E; Weiss RV; Tori AP; Picinatto CC; Ribeiro NR; Reis A
J Adhes Dent; 2007 Feb; 9(1):57-64. PubMed ID: 17432402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
