222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22015462)
1. The competition between enamel and dentin adhesion within a cavity: an in vitro evaluation of class V restorations.
Bortolotto T; Doudou W; Kunzelmann KH; Krejci I
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1125-35. PubMed ID: 22015462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Marginal adaptation of an etch-and-rinse adhesive with a new type of solvent in class II cavities after artificial aging.
Manhart J; Trumm C
Clin Oral Investig; 2010 Dec; 14(6):699-705. PubMed ID: 19937075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Selective enamel etching: effect on marginal adaptation of self-etch LED-cured bond systems in aged Class I composite restorations.
Souza-Junior EJ; Prieto LT; Araújo CT; Paulillo LA
Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):195-204. PubMed ID: 22313271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Sealing effectiveness of etch-and-rinse vs self-etching adhesives after water aging: influence of acid etching and NaOCl dentin pretreatment.
Monticelli F; Toledano M; Silva AS; Osorio E; Osorio R
J Adhes Dent; 2008 Jun; 10(3):183-8. PubMed ID: 18652266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Marginal adaptation of large adhesive class IV composite restorations before and after artificial aging.
Ardu S; Stavridakis M; Feilzer AJ; Krejci I; Lefever D; Dietschi D
J Adhes Dent; 2011 Oct; 13(5):425-31. PubMed ID: 20978643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
Stavridakis MM; Kakaboura AI; Ardu S; Krejci I
Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations.
Rodrigues Junior SA; Pin LF; Machado G; Della Bona A; Demarco FF
J Appl Oral Sci; 2010; 18(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 20379680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Marginal integrity of large compomer Class II restorations with cervical margins in dentine.
Dietrich T; Kraemer M; Lösche GM; Roulet J
J Dent; 2000 Aug; 28(6):399-405. PubMed ID: 10856804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch?
Frankenberger R; Lohbauer U; Roggendorf MJ; Naumann M; Taschner M
J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):339-44. PubMed ID: 19058678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Marginal permeability of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems.
Owens BM; Johnson WW; Harris EF
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(1):60-7. PubMed ID: 16536195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Flowable materials as an intermediate layer could improve the marginal and internal adaptation of composite restorations in Class-V-cavities.
Li Q; Jepsen S; Albers HK; Eberhard J
Dent Mater; 2006 Mar; 22(3):250-7. PubMed ID: 16084584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of incorrect application of a water-based adhesive system on the marginal adaptation of Class V restorations.
Peschke A; Blunck U; Roulet JF
Am J Dent; 2000 Oct; 13(5):239-44. PubMed ID: 11764109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives.
Khoroushi M; Karvandi TM; Kamali B; Mazaheri H
Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(3):378-83. PubMed ID: 23059577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Analysis of marginal adaptation and sealing to enamel and dentin of four self-adhesive resin cements.
Aschenbrenner CM; Lang R; Handel G; Behr M
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Feb; 16(1):191-200. PubMed ID: 21327799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive.
Peumans M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
J Adhes Dent; 2007 Feb; 9(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 17432395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Marginal adaptation of ormocer-, silorane-, and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems bonded to dentin cavities after water storage.
Mahmoud SH; Al-Wakeel Eel S
Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(10):e131-9. PubMed ID: 22026005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine.
Dietrich T; Lösche AC; Lösche GM; Roulet JF
J Dent; 1999 Feb; 27(2):119-28. PubMed ID: 10071469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. In vitro study of enamel and dentin marginal integrity of composite and compomer restorations placed in primary teeth after diamond or Er:YAG laser cavity preparation.
Stiesch-Scholz M; Hannig M
J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(3):213-22. PubMed ID: 11317395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope.
Heintze SD; Monreal D; Peschke A
J Adhes Dent; 2015 Apr; 17(2):147-54. PubMed ID: 25893223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
