607 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19544814)
1. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up.
Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Rubo JH; Santos GC
Oper Dent; 2013; 38(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 22856680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.
Frankenberger R; Petschelt A; Krämer N
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Kawamura Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Long-term survival of Cerec restorations: a 10-year study.
Zimmer S; Göhlich O; Rüttermann S; Lang H; Raab WH; Barthel CR
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):484-7. PubMed ID: 18833853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Ceramic inlays bonded with two adhesives after 4 years.
Krämer N; Ebert J; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
Dent Mater; 2006 Jan; 22(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 16122784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Influence of cavity design and restorative material on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars.
Cubas GB; Camacho GB; Pereira-Cenci T; Nonaka T; Barbin EL
Gen Dent; 2010; 58(2):e84-8. PubMed ID: 20236909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays.
Frankenberger R; Reinelt C; Petschelt A; Krämer N
Dent Mater; 2009 Aug; 25(8):960-8. PubMed ID: 19344946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
van Dijken JW
J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems.
Molin MK; Karlsson SL
Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 11203631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation.
Mena-Serrano A; Kose C; De Paula EA; Tay LY; Reis A; Loguercio AD; Perdigão J
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2013 Feb; 25(1):55-69. PubMed ID: 23374411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Fatigue load of teeth restored with bonded direct composite and indirect ceramic inlays in MOD class II cavity preparations.
Shor A; Nicholls JI; Phillips KM; Libman WJ
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 12675458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage.
Coelho-De-Souza FH; Camacho GB; Demarco FF; Powers JM
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 18335731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
