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 *

74 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17555171)

  • 1. Effect of restoration size on the clinical performance of posterior "packable" resin composites over 18 months.
    Brackett WW; Browning WD; Brackett MG; Callan RS; Blalock JS
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(3):212-6. PubMed ID: 17555171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
    Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in Class II cavities.
    van Dijken JW; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
    J Dent; 2006 Nov; 34(10):763-9. PubMed ID: 16580114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison.
    Cobb DS; MacGregor KM; Vargas MA; Denehy GE
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2000 Nov; 131(11):1610-5. PubMed ID: 11103581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months.
    Browning WD; Myers ML; Chan DC; Downey MC; Pohjola RM; Frazier KB
    Quintessence Int; 2006 May; 37(5):361-8. PubMed ID: 16683683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years.
    Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
    Quintessence Int; 2005 May; 36(5):365-72. PubMed ID: 15892534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations.
    Loguercio AD; Reis A; Rodrigues Filho LE; Busato AL
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(5):427-34. PubMed ID: 11551005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: a five-year follow-up.
    Fagundes TC; Barata TJ; Carvalho CA; Franco EB; van Dijken JW; Navarro MF
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2009 Apr; 140(4):447-54. PubMed ID: 19339534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results.
    Zulfikaroglu BT; Atac AS; Cehreli ZC
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2008; 75(1):33-43. PubMed ID: 18505646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Extensive composite molar restorations: 3 years clinical evaluation.
    Laegreid T; Gjerdet NR; Johansson AK
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2012 Jul; 70(4):344-52. PubMed ID: 21780983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of a posterior resin composite: 3-year results.
    Wendt SL; Leinfelder KF
    Am J Dent; 1994 Aug; 7(4):207-11. PubMed ID: 7986437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 16956709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.