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 *

352 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18505215)

  • 1. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial.
    Moncada G; Fernández E; Martín J; Arancibia C; Mjör IA; Gordan VV
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(3):258-64. PubMed ID: 18505215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants.
    Martin J; Fernandez E; Estay J; Gordan VV; Mjor IA; Moncada G
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 22788726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Riley J; Mjör IA
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(3):144-53; discussion 154. PubMed ID: 16831187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 2-year clinical evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations.
    Gordan VV; Riley JL; Blaser PK; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):418-25. PubMed ID: 16924981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Alternative treatments for resin-based composite and amalgam restorations with marginal defects: a 12-month clinical trial.
    Moncada GC; Martin J; Fernandez E; Vildosola PG; Caamano C; Caro MJ; Mjor IA; Gordan VV
    Gen Dent; 2006; 54(5):314-8. PubMed ID: 17004564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial.
    Moncada G; Martin J; Fernández E; Hempel MC; Mjör IA; Gordan VV
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2009 Apr; 140(4):425-32. PubMed ID: 19339531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations: results of a seven-year clinical study.
    Gordan VV; Riley JL; Blaser PK; Mondragon E; Garvan CW; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2011 Jul; 142(7):842-9. PubMed ID: 21719808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
    Popoff DA; Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Survival rate of sealed, refurbished and repaired defective restorations: 4-year follow-up.
    Fernández EM; Martin JA; Angel PA; Mjör IA; Gordan VV; Moncada GA
    Braz Dent J; 2011; 22(2):134-9. PubMed ID: 21537587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Watson RE; Mjor IA
    Am J Dent; 2005 Feb; 18(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15810481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Effect of new generation surface sealants on the marginal permeability of Class V resin composite restorations.
    Owens BM; Johnson WW
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):481-8. PubMed ID: 16924989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study.
    Cloyd S; Gilpatrick RO; Moore D
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1997 Oct; 77(4):36-40. PubMed ID: 9520761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Bonded amalgam sealants and adhesive resin sealants: five-year clinical results.
    Staninec M; Artiga N; Gansky SA; Marshall GW; Eakle S
    Quintessence Int; 2004 May; 35(5):351-7. PubMed ID: 15130073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Giráldez I; Ceballos L
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of three surface sealants on marginal sealing of Class V composite resin restorations.
    Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Chinelatti MA; Dibb RG; Mondelli J
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):448-53. PubMed ID: 11203855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.