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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19492716)

  • 21. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo.
    Opdam NJ; Roeters FJ; Feilzer AJ; Verdonschot EH
    J Dent; 1998 Sep; 26(7):555-62. PubMed ID: 9754743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2015 Dec; 43(12):1547-58. PubMed ID: 26363442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Leakage pathway of Class V cavities restored with different flowable resin composite restorations.
    Awliya WY; El-Sahn AM
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 18335730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y; Koray F
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Jul; 19(6):1371-9. PubMed ID: 25359327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years.
    Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Kieri C
    Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15241909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
    da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
    J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Two-year clinical evaluation of packable and nanostructured resin-based composites placed with two techniques.
    Monteiro PM; Manso MC; Gavinha S; Melo P
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2010 Mar; 141(3):319-29. PubMed ID: 20194388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Retention and marginal adaptation of a compomer placed in non-stress-bearing areas used with the total-etch technique: a 3-year retrospective study.
    Prati C; Chersoni S; Cretti L; Montanari G
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Dec; 2(4):168-73. PubMed ID: 10388389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.
    Borgia E; Baron R; Borgia JL
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e195-e203. PubMed ID: 28513897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Sadeghi M; Lynch CD; Shahamat N
    J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
    Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Clinical comparison of bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: two-year follow-up.
    Yazici AR; Baseren M; Gorucu J
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical Performance and Epidemiologic Aspects of Fractured Anterior Teeth Restored with a Composite Resin: A Two-Year Clinical Study.
    Vural UK; Kiremitçi A; Gökalp S
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e204-e209. PubMed ID: 28960769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.