238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20194388)
1. 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]
2. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite.
Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Sep; 134(9):1205-12. PubMed ID: 14528992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years.
Poon EC; Smales RJ; Yip KH
J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1533-40. PubMed ID: 16329416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation.
Gordan VV; Mjör IA; Vazquez O; Watson RE; Wilson N
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002; 14(5):296-302. PubMed ID: 12405585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
J Adhes Dent; 2015 Feb; 17(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 25625133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions.
Onal B; Pamir T
J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1547-55. PubMed ID: 16329418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: a five-year follow-up.
Fagundes TC; Barata TJ; Carvalho CA; Franco EB; van Dijken JW; Navarro MF
J Am Dent Assoc; 2009 Apr; 140(4):447-54. PubMed ID: 19339534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations.
Aggarwal V; Logani A; Jain V; Shah N
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):587-92. PubMed ID: 18833866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
Dresch W; Volpato S; Gomes JC; Ribeiro NR; Reis A; Loguercio AD
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 16924980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Three-year clinical evaluation of two flowable composites.
Gallo JR; Burgess JO; Ripps AH; Walker RS; Maltezos MB; Mercante DE; Davidson JM
Quintessence Int; 2010 Jun; 41(6):497-503. PubMed ID: 20490392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
