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 *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18998173)

  • 1. Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Hickel R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2009 Sep; 13(3):301-7. PubMed ID: 18998173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Hickel R
    J Adhes Dent; 2010 Jun; 12(3):237-43. PubMed ID: 20157663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical performance of the posterior composite QuiXfil after 3, 6, and 18 months in Class 1 and 2 cavities.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Neuerer P; Thiele L; Jaensch B; Hickel R
    Quintessence Int; 2008 Oct; 39(9):757-65. PubMed ID: 19093049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT.
    Heck K; Manhart J; Hickel R; Diegritz C
    Dent Mater; 2018 Jun; 34(6):e138-e147. PubMed ID: 29636239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug; 17(5):433-41. PubMed ID: 26525008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.
    Huth KC; Chen HY; Mehl A; Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Dent; 2011 Jul; 39(7):478-88. PubMed ID: 21554920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: two-year results.
    Arhun N; Celik C; Yamanel K
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 20672723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in Class I and II restorations: 2-year results.
    Lundin SA; Rasmusson CG
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Oct; 35(9):758-62. PubMed ID: 15471000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Direct posterior composite restorations with a new adhesive system: one-year results.
    Schoch M; Krämer N; Frankenberger R; Petschelt A
    J Adhes Dent; 1999; 1(2):167-73. PubMed ID: 11725682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; García-Godoy F; Taschner M; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2009 Aug; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical performance and SEM marginal quality of extended posterior resin composite restorations after 12 years.
    Frankenberger R; Reinelt C; Glatthöfer C; Krämer N
    Dent Mater; 2020 Jul; 36(7):e217-e228. PubMed ID: 32451207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 24-Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins in Class II Restorations.
    Guney T; Yazici AR
    Oper Dent; 2020; 45(2):123-133. PubMed ID: 31693438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material.
    Schirrmeister JF; Huber K; Hellwig E; Hahn P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2006 Sep; 10(3):181-6. PubMed ID: 16721551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite.
    Ernst CP; Brandenbusch M; Meyer G; Canbek K; Gottschalk F; Willershausen B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2006 Jun; 10(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 16555069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. One-year evaluation of two hybrid composites placed in a randomized-controlled clinical trial.
    Beck F; Dumitrescu N; König F; Graf A; Bauer P; Sperr W; Moritz A; Schedle A
    Dent Mater; 2014 Aug; 30(8):824-38. PubMed ID: 24946982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Newer Class I cavity preparation for permanent teeth using air abrasion and composite restoration.
    Ferdianakis K; White GE
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(3):201-16. PubMed ID: 10686867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):E1-11. PubMed ID: 23215545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.