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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22439529)

  • 1. The clinical significance of marginal fit.
    Larson TD
    Northwest Dent; 2012; 91(1):22-9. PubMed ID: 22439529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Marginal integrity and secondary caries of selectively excavated teeth in vitro.
    Schwendicke F; Kern M; Blunck U; Dörfer C; Drenck J; Paris S
    J Dent; 2014 Oct; 42(10):1261-8. PubMed ID: 25132367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1.
    Hilton TJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Jun; 15(3):198-210. PubMed ID: 12469759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A retrospective clinical study of cervical restorations: longevity and failure-prognostic variables.
    Namgung C; Rho YJ; Jin BH; Lim BS; Cho BH
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(4):376-85. PubMed ID: 23215544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Prediction and diagnosis of clinical outcomes affecting restoration margins.
    Dennison JB; Sarrett DC
    J Oral Rehabil; 2012 Apr; 39(4):301-18. PubMed ID: 22066463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical criteria.
    Ryge G
    Int Dent J; 1980 Dec; 30(4):347-58. PubMed ID: 6935165
    [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. An in vitro study on the secondary caries-prevention properties of three restorative materials.
    Lai GY; Zhu LK; Li MY; Wang J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):363-8. PubMed ID: 23998624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Five-year clinical evaluation of Dyract in small Class I cavities.
    Demirci M; Sancakli HS
    Am J Dent; 2006 Feb; 19(1):41-6. PubMed ID: 16555657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Commentary: effect of surface sealants on marginal microleakage in Class V resin composite restorations.
    Brucia J
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2009; 21(6):405-6. PubMed ID: 20002928
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical performance and wear resistance of two compomers in posterior occlusal restorations of permanent teeth: six-year follow-up.
    Lund RG; Sehn FP; Piva E; Detoni D; Moura FR; Cardoso PE; Demarco FF
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(2):118-23. PubMed ID: 17427819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fluoride-releasing restorative materials and secondary caries.
    Hicks J; Garcia-Godoy F; Donly K; Flaitz C
    J Calif Dent Assoc; 2003 Mar; 31(3):229-45. PubMed ID: 12693822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Influence of restorative techniques on marginal adaptation and dye penetration around Class V restorations.
    Pereira Ade F; Poiate IA; Poiate E; Rodrigues FP; Turbino ML; Miranda WG
    Gen Dent; 2012; 60(1):e17-21. PubMed ID: 22313988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 2.
    Hilton TJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):279-89. PubMed ID: 12572649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Deterioration of restorative materials and the risk for secondary caries.
    Goldberg AJ
    Adv Dent Res; 1990 Jun; 4():14-8. PubMed ID: 2206208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.