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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22782061)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
    da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
    J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Nanomicrohybrid composites make posterior placement easier.
    Vargas M
    Dent Today; 2012 May; 31(5):128, 130-1. PubMed ID: 22650094
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.
    Ostlund J; Möller K; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 1496459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
    Ermiş RB
    Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
    Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hinkel R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Nanohybrid versus nanofill composite in class I cavities: margin analysis after 12 months.
    de Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Guedes Lima SJ; Passos TA; Lima KC; Montes MA
    Microsc Res Tech; 2011 Jan; 74(1):23-7. PubMed ID: 21181706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical performance of Class II restorations in which resin composite is laminated over resin-modified glass-ionomer.
    Aboush YE; Torabzadeh H
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 11203844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer.
    Monaco C; Baldissara P; dall'Orologio GD; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11842911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Mönting JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):259-64. PubMed ID: 11203828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    J Adhes Dent; 2014 Dec; 16(6):585-92. PubMed ID: 25516885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities.
    Schirrmeister JF; Huber K; Hellwig E; Hahn P
    J Adhes Dent; 2009 Oct; 11(5):399-404. PubMed ID: 19841767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A clinical study of adhesive amalgam in pediatric dental practice.
    Cannon ML; Tylka JA; Sandrik J
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Apr; 20(4):331-4, 336, 338 passim; quiz 344. PubMed ID: 11692340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.