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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17625618)

  • 1. A multipractice clinical evaluation of an ORMOCER restorative--2-year results.
    Rosin M; Schwahn C; Kordass B; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Quintessence Int; 2007 Jun; 38(6):e306-15. PubMed ID: 17625618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling.
    Kournetas N; Chakmakchi M; Kakaboura A; Rahiotis C; Geis-Gerstorfer J
    Clin Oral Investig; 2004 Sep; 8(3):123-9. PubMed ID: 15248053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Kawamura Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities.
    Schirrmeister JF; Huber K; Hellwig E; Hahn P
    J Adhes Dent; 2009 Oct; 11(5):399-404. PubMed ID: 19841767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of Dyract AP restorative in permanent molars: 2-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Smales RJ; Wei SH
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):403-6. PubMed ID: 12691278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. [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]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years.
    Poon EC; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1533-40. PubMed ID: 16329416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope.
    Heintze SD; Monreal D; Peschke A
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Apr; 17(2):147-54. PubMed ID: 25893223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
    Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Three-year prospective clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a nanofiller hybrid resin composite in Class V lesions.
    Preussker S; Pöschmann M; Kensche A; Natusch I; Koch R; Klimm W; Hannig C
    Am J Dent; 2014 Apr; 27(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 25000664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Two-year performance of glass-ceramic insert-resin composite restorations: clinical and scanning electron microscopic evaluation.
    Kiremitçi A; Bolay S; Gürgan S
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Jul; 29(7):417-21. PubMed ID: 9759057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.