169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20829151)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Effect of prepolymerized composite megafiller on the marginal adaptation of composite restorations in cavities with different C-factors: an SEM study.
Bhushan S; Logani A; Shah N
Indian J Dent Res; 2010; 21(4):500-5. PubMed ID: 21187613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years.
Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Reinelt C; Feilzer AJ; Frankenberger R
Dent Mater; 2011 May; 27(5):455-64. PubMed ID: 21397316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings.
Demarco FF; Cenci MS; Lima FG; Donassollo TA; André Dde A; Leida FL
J Dent; 2007 Mar; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results.
Pascon FM; Kantovitz KR; Caldo-Teixeira AS; Borges AF; Silva TN; Puppin-Rontani RM; Garcia-Godoy F
J Dent; 2006 Jul; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
