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 *

93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20420058)

  • 1. Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement.
    Dukic W; Dukic OL; Milardovic S; Delija B
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(2):156-64. PubMed ID: 20420058
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y; Koray F
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.
    Huth KC; Chen HY; Mehl A; Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Dent; 2011 Jul; 39(7):478-88. PubMed ID: 21554920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Manhart J; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11005901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling.
    Kournetas N; Chakmakchi M; Kakaboura A; Rahiotis C; Geis-Gerstorfer J
    Clin Oral Investig; 2004 Sep; 8(3):123-9. PubMed ID: 15248053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):E1-11. PubMed ID: 23215545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo.
    Spreafico RC; Krejci I; Dietschi D
    J Dent; 2005 Jul; 33(6):499-507. PubMed ID: 15935270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer.
    Monaco C; Baldissara P; dall'Orologio GD; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11842911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(1):32-42. PubMed ID: 23614660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. One-year clinical evaluation of an ethanol-based and a solvent-free dentin adhesive.
    Aw TC; Lepe X; Johnson GH; Mancl L
    Am J Dent; 2004 Dec; 17(6):451-6. PubMed ID: 15724760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of indirect resin composite and ceramic onlays over a 24-month period.
    Kaytan B; Onal B; Pamir T; Tezel H
    Gen Dent; 2005; 53(5):329-34. PubMed ID: 16252535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Giráldez I; Ceballos L
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.