474 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20945740)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser radiation.
Shahabi S; Ebrahimpour L; Walsh LJ
Aust Dent J; 2008 Jun; 53(2):172-5. PubMed ID: 18494974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
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. 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]
8. Cervical margin integrity of Class II resin composite restorations in laser- and bur-prepared cavities using three different adhesive systems.
Oskoee PA; Kimyai S; Ebrahimi Chaharom ME; Rikhtegaran S; Pournaghi-Azar F
Oper Dent; 2012; 37(3):316-23. PubMed ID: 22313277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cavity preparation devices: effect on microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations.
Setien VJ; Cobb DS; Denehy GE; Vargas MA
Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 11572294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Microleakage study of different adhesive systems in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser and bur preparation.
Ergucu Z; Celik EU; Turkun M
Gen Dent; 2007; 55(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17333962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
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. 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]
15. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. SEM evaluation of the hybrid layer after cavity preparation with Er:YAG laser.
de Barceleiro MO; Dias KR; Sales HX; Silva BC; Barceleiro CG
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(3):294-304. PubMed ID: 18505220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
