121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22782061)
1. Clinical evaluation of nanofill and nanohybrid composite in Class I restorations: a 12-month randomized trial.
Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Silva FD; Batista AU; Lima KC; Pontual ML; Montes MA
Gen Dent; 2012; 60(4):e255-62. PubMed ID: 22782061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite.
de Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Medeiros e Silva FD; Batista AU; Lima KC; Pontual ML; Montes MA
J Dent; 2011 Jan; 39(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 20888884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
Alves dos Santos MP; Luiz RR; Maia LC
J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
Casagrande L; Dalpian DM; Ardenghi TM; Zanatta FB; Balbinot CE; García-Godoy F; De Araujo FB
Am J Dent; 2013 Dec; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Three-and-a-half-year clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin in children.
Memarpour M; Mesbahi M; Shafıei F
J Dent Child (Chic); 2010; 77(2):92-8. PubMed ID: 20819404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial.
Barabanti N; Gagliani M; Roulet JF; Testori T; Ozcan M; Cerutti A
J Dent; 2013 May; 41(5):436-42. PubMed ID: 23454329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite.
Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Buchalla W; Mönting JS
Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 11572292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Randomized controlled trial of the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in class 1 posterior restorations.
Efes BG; Yaman BC; Gurbuz O; Gumuştaş B
Am J Dent; 2013 Feb; 26(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 23724547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
