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 *

1118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19577288)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Nanofilled and microhybrid composite restorations: Five-year clinical wear performances.
    Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Dent Mater; 2011 Jul; 27(7):692-700. PubMed ID: 21529923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effect of prepolymerized composite megafiller on the marginal adaptation of composite restorations in cavities with different C-factors: an SEM study.
    Bhushan S; Logani A; Shah N
    Indian J Dent Res; 2010; 21(4):500-5. PubMed ID: 21187613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of layering techniques on the micro-tensile bond strength to dentin in resin composite restorations.
    Niu Y; Ma X; Fan M; Zhu S
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jan; 25(1):129-34. PubMed ID: 18614225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative in vivo and in vitro investigation of interfacial bond variability.
    Hannig M; Friedrichs C
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 11203774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. SEM study of a self-etching primer adhesive system used for dentin bonding in primary and permanent teeth.
    da Silva Telles PD; Aparecida M; Machado M; Nör JE
    Pediatr Dent; 2001; 23(4):315-20. PubMed ID: 11572489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Swift EJ; Ritter AV; Heymann HO; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD
    Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficacy of composites filled with nanoparticles in permanent molars: Six-month results.
    Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Silva FD; Batista AU; Lima KC; Pontual ML; Montes MA
    Gen Dent; 2010; 58(5):e190-5. PubMed ID: 20829151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.
    Busato AL; Loguercio AD; Reis A; Carrilho MR
    Am J Dent; 2001 Oct; 14(5):304-8. PubMed ID: 11803995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Direct dentin bonding technique sensitivity when using air/suction drying steps.
    Magne P; Mahallati R; Bazos P; So WS
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2008; 20(2):130-8; discussion 139-40. PubMed ID: 18380845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report.
    de Souza FB; Guimarães RP; Silva CH
    Quintessence Int; 2005 Jan; 36(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 15709496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Potential of restorative systems with simplified adhesives: quantitative analysis of wear and marginal adaptation in vitro.
    Göhring TN; Schönenberger KA; Lutz F
    Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):275-82. PubMed ID: 14579884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 56.