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 *

373 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22408783)

  • 1. Clinical wear rate of direct and indirect posterior composite resin restorations.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2012 Jun; 32(3):e87-94. PubMed ID: 22408783
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):E1-11. PubMed ID: 23215545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Clinical wear of posterior metal-free polymer crowns. One-year results from a randomized clinical trial.
    Ohlmann B; Uekermann J; Dreyhaupt J; Schmitter M; Mussotter K; Rammelsberg P
    J Dent; 2007 Mar; 35(3):246-52. PubMed ID: 17027139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
    Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
    Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
    [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. 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]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Giráldez I; Ceballos L
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems.
    Kasraei S; Azarsina M; Majidi S
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 21702678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Class II composite restorations: importance of cervical enamel in vitro.
    Laegreid T; Gjerdet NR; Vult von Steyern P; Johansson AK
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):187-95. PubMed ID: 21777100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of pre-heated composites and flowable liners on Class II gingival margin gap formation.
    Sabatini C; Blunck U; Denehy G; Munoz C
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):663-71. PubMed ID: 21180006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N
    Dent Mater J; 2009 Sep; 28(5):620-6. PubMed ID: 19822994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.