434 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20672723)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Clinical comparison of bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: two-year follow-up.
Yazici AR; Baseren M; Gorucu J
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
Popoff DA; Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
Oper Dent; 2012; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
van Dijken JW
J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
Ermiş RB
Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions.
Brackett MG; Dib A; Franco G; Estrada BE; Brackett WW
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 20533626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical evaluation of nanofill and nanohybrid composite in Class I restorations: a 12-month randomized trial.
Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Silva FD; Batista AU; Lima KC; Pontual ML; Montes MA
Gen Dent; 2012; 60(4):e255-62. PubMed ID: 22782061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Three-year prospective clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a nanofiller hybrid resin composite in Class V lesions.
Preussker S; Pöschmann M; Kensche A; Natusch I; Koch R; Klimm W; Hannig C
Am J Dent; 2014 Apr; 27(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 25000664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
