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 *

61 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2135269)

  • 1. [P-30: in vivo study of a posterior composite during 2.5 years].
    Krejci I; Krejci D; Lutz F
    Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1990 Dec; 45(12):773-8. PubMed ID: 2135269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
    Krejci I; Besek M; Lutz F
    Am J Dent; 1994 Feb; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 9115675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations.
    Malmström HS; Schlueter M; Roach T; Moss ME
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):373-80. PubMed ID: 12120775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Occlusal glass ionomer cermet, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations: a 2-year clinical study.
    Lidums A; Wilkie R; Smales R
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 7803005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Studies on posterior composite resins with special reference to class II restorations.
    Lundin SA
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1990; 73():1-41. PubMed ID: 2264013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. [In vitro evaluation of two composite material for posterior restorations].
    Krejci I; Lutz F
    Stomatol DDR; 1990 Aug; 40(8):326-32. PubMed ID: 2270611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study.
    Pesun IJ; Olson AK; Hodges JS; Anderson GC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 11005910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
    Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years.
    Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Clinical evaluation for wear of composite resin in filling of molars].
    Ji A; Lin H; Wang J
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 1997 Nov; 32(6):335-7. PubMed ID: 11189303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of custom occlusal matrix technique for posterior light-cured composites.
    Hamilton JC; Krestik KE; Dennison JB
    Oper Dent; 1998; 23(6):303-7. PubMed ID: 9855853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2006 Feb; 19(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 16555660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of an adhesive bonding system on wear resistance of resin composite restorations.
    Shinkai K; Suzuki S; Katoh Y
    Quintessence Int; 1997 Oct; 28(10):687-93. PubMed ID: 9477890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results.
    Rasmusson CG; Lundin SA
    Swed Dent J; 1995; 19(5):173-82. PubMed ID: 8614898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):466-72. PubMed ID: 11203858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jun; 25(6):750-9. PubMed ID: 19237189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.