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 *

330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18491670)

  • 1. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2008; 118(4):290-5. PubMed ID: 18491670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2009; 34(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 19953810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results.
    Pascon FM; Kantovitz KR; Caldo-Teixeira AS; Borges AF; Silva TN; Puppin-Rontani RM; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Dent; 2006 Jul; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations.
    Vilkinis V; Hörsted-Bindslev P; Baelum V
    Clin Oral Investig; 2000 Sep; 4(3):133-9. PubMed ID: 11000317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions.
    Loguercio AD; Reis A; Barbosa AN; Roulet JF
    J Adhes Dent; 2003; 5(4):323-32. PubMed ID: 15008339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
    Donly KJ; Segura A; Kanellis M; Erickson RL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1999 Oct; 130(10):1459-66. PubMed ID: 10570589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Marginal adaptation to enamel of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in vivo.
    van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    Clin Oral Investig; 1997 Dec; 1(4):185-90. PubMed ID: 9555215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Longevity of extensive class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement.
    van Dijken JW; Kieri C; Carlén M
    J Dent Res; 1999 Jul; 78(7):1319-25. PubMed ID: 10403459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars.
    Webman M; Mulki E; Roldan R; Arevalo O; Roberts JF; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2016; 40(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 26696100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite in Class III restorations.
    van Dijken JW
    Am J Dent; 1996 Oct; 9(5):195-8. PubMed ID: 9545903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 1-year clinical evaluation of Compoglass and Fuji II LC in cervical erosion/abfraction lesions.
    Brackett WW; Browning WD; Ross JA; Gregory PN; Owens BM
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):119-22. PubMed ID: 10649933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars.
    Gross LC; Griffen AL; Casamassimo PS
    Pediatr Dent; 2001; 23(1):24-7. PubMed ID: 11242726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results.
    Cehreli ZC; Cetinguc A; Cengiz SB; Altay AN
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):262-6. PubMed ID: 17073200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation.
    Marks LA; Weerheijm KL; van Amerongen WE; Groen HJ; Martens LC
    Caries Res; 1999; 33(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 10460963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
    Ermiş RB
    Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study.
    Papagiannoulis L; Kakaboura A; Pantaleon F; Kavvadia K
    Pediatr Dent; 1999; 21(4):231-4. PubMed ID: 10436476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Mönting JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):259-64. PubMed ID: 11203828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up.
    Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Palma-Dibb RG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 31(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 15025658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.