292 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20819404)
1. Three-and-a-half-year clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin in children.
Memarpour M; Mesbahi M; Shafıei F
J Dent Child (Chic); 2010; 77(2):92-8. PubMed ID: 20819404
[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. A clinical study of adhesive amalgam in pediatric dental practice.
Cannon ML; Tylka JA; Sandrik J
Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Apr; 20(4):331-4, 336, 338 passim; quiz 344. PubMed ID: 11692340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite.
de Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Medeiros e Silva FD; Batista AU; Lima KC; Pontual ML; Montes MA
J Dent; 2011 Jan; 39(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 20888884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hinkel R
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
[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. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.
Ostlund J; Möller K; Koch G
Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 1496459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
Casagrande L; Dalpian DM; Ardenghi TM; Zanatta FB; Balbinot CE; García-Godoy F; De Araujo FB
Am J Dent; 2013 Dec; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
Alves dos Santos MP; Luiz RR; Maia LC
J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.
Busato AL; Loguercio AD; Reis A; Carrilho MR
Am J Dent; 2001 Oct; 14(5):304-8. PubMed ID: 11803995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations.
Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Restorations with composite resin and hybrid materials clinical].
Săvenau CI; Dănilă I
Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi; 2010; 114(1):233-8. PubMed ID: 20509308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Two-year clinical study on postoperative pulpal complications arising from the absence of a glass-ionomer lining in deep occlusal resin-composite restorations.
Banomyong D; Messer H
J Investig Clin Dent; 2013 Nov; 4(4):265-70. PubMed ID: 23355492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical performance of Class II restorations in which resin composite is laminated over resin-modified glass-ionomer.
Aboush YE; Torabzadeh H
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 11203844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation.
Andersson-Wenckert I; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
Acta Odontol Scand; 2006 Nov; 64(6):334-40. PubMed ID: 17123909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
