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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19669176)

  • 1. Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations.
    Palaniappan S; Elsen L; Lijnen I; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2010 Aug; 14(4):441-58. PubMed ID: 19669176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Nanohybrid and microfilled hybrid versus conventional hybrid composite restorations: 5-year clinical wear performance.
    Palaniappan S; Elsen L; Lijnen I; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Feb; 16(1):181-90. PubMed ID: 21221678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Clinical wear rate of direct and indirect posterior composite resin restorations.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2012 Jun; 32(3):e87-94. PubMed ID: 22408783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
    Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM; Hamama HH
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Aug; 10(4):315-22. PubMed ID: 18792703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    J Adhes Dent; 2014 Dec; 16(6):585-92. PubMed ID: 25516885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Longitudinal micromorphological 15-year results of posterior composite restorations using three-dimensional scanning electron microscopy.
    Dietz W; Montag R; Kraft U; Walther M; Sigusch BW; Gaengler P
    J Dent; 2014 Aug; 42(8):959-69. PubMed ID: 24814136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Marginal Integrity of Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Class II Composite Restorations.
    Al-Harbi F; Kaisarly D; Bader D; El Gezawi M
    Oper Dent; 2016; 41(2):146-56. PubMed ID: 26266653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
    Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study.
    Pesun IJ; Olson AK; Hodges JS; Anderson GC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 11005910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.