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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17919253)

  • 1. Clinical performance of a self-etching and a total-etch adhesive system - 2-year results.
    Bekes K; Boeckler L; Gernhardt CR; Schaller HG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2007 Nov; 34(11):855-61. PubMed ID: 17919253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions.
    Peumans M; Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2005 Dec; 113(6):512-8. PubMed ID: 16324142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars.
    Eden E; Topaloglu-Ak A; Frencken JE; van't Hof M
    Am J Dent; 2006 Dec; 19(6):359-63. PubMed ID: 17212078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical performance of a self-etch adhesive in Class V restorations made with and without acid etching.
    Abdalla AI; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Dent; 2007 Jul; 35(7):558-63. PubMed ID: 17467137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A randomized controlled clinical trial of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year.
    Van Landuyt KL; Peumans M; Fieuws S; De Munck J; Cardoso MV; Ermis RB; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
    J Dent; 2008 Oct; 36(10):847-55. PubMed ID: 18656295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Self-etching adhesives and postoperative sensitivity.
    Unemori M; Matsuya Y; Akashi A; Goto Y; Akamine A
    Am J Dent; 2004 Jun; 17(3):191-5. PubMed ID: 15301216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical performance of a two-step self-etch adhesive with additional enamel etching in Class III cavities.
    Ermis RB; Temel UB; Cellik EU; Kam O
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(2):147-55. PubMed ID: 20420057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months.
    Perdigão J; Carmo AR; Anauate-Netto C; Amore R; Lewgoy HR; Cordeiro HJ; Dutra-Corrêa M; Castilhos N
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):135-40. PubMed ID: 15973834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2006 Feb; 19(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 16555660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jun; 25(6):750-9. PubMed ID: 19237189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up.
    Pollington S; van Noort R
    Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 18435377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Swift EJ; Ritter AV; Heymann HO; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD
    Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 4-year clinical performance and survival analysis of Class I and II compomer restorations in permanent teeth.
    Huth KC; Manhart J; Selbertinger A; Paschos E; Kaaden C; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 15241910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of adhesive systems and bevel on enamel margin integrity in primary and permanent teeth.
    Swanson TK; Feigal RJ; Tantbirojn D; Hodges JS
    Pediatr Dent; 2008; 30(2):134-40. PubMed ID: 18481578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in Class III cavities: 5-year results.
    Demirci M; Ersev H; Sancakli HS; Topçubaşi M
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):293-6. PubMed ID: 17073207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of a two-step etch&rinse and a two-step self-etch adhesive system in Class II restorations: two-year results.
    Ermis RB; Kam O; Celik EU; Temel UB
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(6):656-63. PubMed ID: 19953774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser radiation.
    Shahabi S; Ebrahimpour L; Walsh LJ
    Aust Dent J; 2008 Jun; 53(2):172-5. PubMed ID: 18494974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The clinical evaluation of a single-bottle adhesive system with three restorative materials in children: six-month results.
    Baghdadi ZD
    Gen Dent; 2005; 53(5):357-65; quiz 366-8. PubMed ID: 16252540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.