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 *

391 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18579283)

  • 21. A one-year clinical evaluation of a high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in primary molars.
    Yilmaz Y; Eyuboglu O; Kocogullari ME; Belduz N
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Feb; 7(1):71-8. PubMed ID: 16491149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Koubi S; Raskin A; Bukiet F; Pignoly C; Toca E; Tassery H
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Nov; 7(5):42-53. PubMed ID: 17091139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Effect of cavosurface margin configuration of Class V cavity preparations on microleakage of composite resin restorations.
    Bagheri M; Ghavamnasiri M
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 Feb; 9(2):122-9. PubMed ID: 18264534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months.
    Holan G; Chosack A; Eidelman E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1996; 63(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 8958346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
    Yip HK; Smales RJ; Yu C; Gao XJ; Deng DM
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Jan; 33(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 11887531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A thirty months clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin in primary molars.
    Cunha RF
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2000; 24(2):113-5. PubMed ID: 11314318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Conservative interproximal box-only polyacid modified composite restorations in primary molars, twelve-month clinical results.
    Marks LA; van Amerongen WE; Kreulen CM; Weerheijm KL; Martens LC
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1999; 66(1):23-9, 12. PubMed ID: 10360200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: a comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements.
    Menezes JP; Rosenblatt A; Medeiros E
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2006; 73(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 16948370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical performance and SEM evaluation of direct composite restorations in primary molars.
    Puppin-Rontani RM; de Góes MF; Voelske CE; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):255-61. PubMed ID: 17073199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo.
    Spreafico RC; Krejci I; Dietschi D
    J Dent; 2005 Jul; 33(6):499-507. PubMed ID: 15935270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A 3-year clinical evaluation of Ketac-Silver restorations in primary molars.
    Holst A
    Swed Dent J; 1996; 20(6):209-14. PubMed ID: 9065982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Treatment of proximal caries lesions by tunnel restorations.
    Wiegand A; Attin T
    Dent Mater; 2007 Dec; 23(12):1461-7. PubMed ID: 17320944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results.
    Roeters JJ; Frankenmolen F; Burgersdijk RC; Peters TC
    Am J Dent; 1998 Jun; 11(3):143-8. PubMed ID: 9823078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical performance of short fiber reinforced composite and glass hybrid on hypomineralized molars: A 36-month randomized split-mouth study.
    Sen Yavuz B; Kaya R; Kodaman Dokumacigil N; Ozgur EG; Bekiroglu N; Kargul B
    J Dent; 2024 May; 144():104919. PubMed ID: 38431187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite in class V carious lesions: 3-year results.
    Demirci M; Ersev H; Topçubaşi M; Uçok M
    Dent Mater J; 2005 Sep; 24(3):321-7. PubMed ID: 16279721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Manhart J; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11005901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.