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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20046481)

  • 1. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results.
    Celik C; Arhun N; Yamanel K
    Eur J Dent; 2010 Jan; 4(1):57-65. PubMed ID: 20046481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: a 3-year study.
    Çelik Ç; Arhun N; Yamanel K
    Med Princ Pract; 2014; 23(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 25115230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.
    Karaman E; Yazici AR; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    J Adhes Dent; 2012 Aug; 14(5):485-92. PubMed ID: 22724113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite as occlusal restorative material in primary molars: one-year results.
    Serin BA; Yazicioglu I; Deveci C; Dogan MC
    Eur Oral Res; 2019 Sep; 53(3):119-124. PubMed ID: 31579892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions.
    Oz FD; Kutuk ZB; Ozturk C; Soleimani R; Gurgan S
    Clin Oral Investig; 2019 Mar; 23(3):1443-1452. PubMed ID: 30109443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions.
    Loguercio AD; Reis A; Barbosa AN; Roulet JF
    J Adhes Dent; 2003; 5(4):323-32. PubMed ID: 15008339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in class III restorations.
    Loguercio AD; Lorini E; Weiss RV; Tori AP; Picinatto CC; Ribeiro NR; Reis A
    J Adhes Dent; 2007 Feb; 9(1):57-64. PubMed ID: 17432402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations.
    Yazici AR; Antonson SA; Kutuk ZB; Ergin E
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(5):478-485. PubMed ID: 28581919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical Performance of Different Solvent-based Dentin Adhesives With Nanofill or Nanohybrid Composites in Class III Restorations: Five Year Results.
    Demirci M; Tuncer S; Sancaklı HS; Tekçe N; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(4):E111-E120. PubMed ID: 28682703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Five-year Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled and a Nanohybrid Composite in Class IV Cavities.
    Demirci M; Tuncer S; Sancakli HS; Tekçe N; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2018; 43(3):261-271. PubMed ID: 29533716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations.
    Ozer F; Irmak O; Yakymiv O; Mohammed A; Pande R; Saleh N; Blatz M
    Oper Dent; 2021 Jan; 46(1):E60-E67. PubMed ID: 33882138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical evaluation of different adhesives used in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.
    Tuncer D; Yazici AR; Özgünaltay G; Dayangac B
    Aust Dent J; 2013 Mar; 58(1):94-100. PubMed ID: 23441798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of laser- and bur-prepared class I cavities restored with two different low-shrinkage composite resins: a randomized, controlled 60-month clinical trial.
    Fatma Dilsad OZ; Ergin E; Attar N; Gurgan S
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Jan; 24(1):357-368. PubMed ID: 31102045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.