359 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16973253)
21. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study.
Friedl K; Hiller KA; Friedl KH
Dent Mater; 2011 Oct; 27(10):1031-7. PubMed ID: 21840585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years.
Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R
Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.
Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
Dent Mater; 2007 Jan; 23(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 16417916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice.
Roberts JF; Attari N; Sherriff M
Br Dent J; 2005 Apr; 198(7):427-31. PubMed ID: 15870802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice. Part 1, baseline data.
Stewardson D; Thornley P; Bigg T; Bromage C; Browne A; Cottam D; Dalby D; Gilmour J; Horton J; Roberts E; Westoby L; Dietrich T; Burke T
Br Dent J; 2010 May; 208(9):E17; discussion 406-7. PubMed ID: 20448583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: results from a paediatric dental clinic.
Pinto Gdos S; Oliveira LJ; Romano AR; Schardosim LR; Bonow ML; Pacce M; Correa MB; Demarco FF; Torriani DD
J Dent; 2014 Oct; 42(10):1248-54. PubMed ID: 25150105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden.
Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K; van Dijken JW; Funegård U; Lindberg A; Nilsson M
J Dent; 2009 Sep; 37(9):673-8. PubMed ID: 19477572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars.
Folkesson UH; Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW
Swed Dent J; 1999; 23(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 10371000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement restorations.
Esteves Barata TJ; Bresciani E; Cestari Fagundes T; Gigo Cefaly DF; Pereira Lauris JR; Lima Navarro MF
Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 18686767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Three-year clinical performance of a compomer in stress-bearing restorations in permanent posterior teeth.
Huth KC; Manhard J; Hickel R; Kunzelmann KH
Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 14579881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation.
Andersson-Wenckert I; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
Acta Odontol Scand; 2006 Nov; 64(6):334-40. PubMed ID: 17123909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing.
Magni E; Zhang L; Hickel R; Bossù M; Polimeni A; Ferrari M
J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 18757129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A 3-year follow-up study of preformed beta-quartz glass-ceramic insert restorations.
Sjögren G; Hedlund SO; Jonsson C; Sandström A
Quintessence Int; 2000 Jan; 31(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 11203902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation.
Croll TP; Bar-Zion Y; Segura A; Donly KJ
J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Aug; 132(8):1110-6. PubMed ID: 11575018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Treatment of proximal caries lesions by tunnel restorations.
Wiegand A; Attin T
Dent Mater; 2007 Dec; 23(12):1461-7. PubMed ID: 17320944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Two-year survival rates of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations in relation to glass ionomer cements and Postrestoration meals consumed.
Kemoli AM; Opinya GN; van Amerongen WE; Mwalili SM
Pediatr Dent; 2011; 33(3):246-51. PubMed ID: 21703078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation.
Dutta BN; Gauba K; Tewari A; Chawla HS
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2001 Sep; 19(3):118-22. PubMed ID: 11817797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: a comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements.
Menezes JP; Rosenblatt A; Medeiros E
J Dent Child (Chic); 2006; 73(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 16948370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
