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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22782061)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation.
    Andersson-Wenckert I; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2006 Nov; 64(6):334-40. PubMed ID: 17123909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2006 Feb; 19(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 16555660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing.
    Magni E; Zhang L; Hickel R; Bossù M; Polimeni A; Ferrari M
    J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 18757129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Effect of the curing method and composite volume on marginal and internal adaptation of composite restoratives.
    Souza-Junior EJ; de Souza-Régis MR; Alonso RC; de Freitas AP; Sinhoreti MA; Cunha LG
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):231-8. PubMed ID: 21702671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings.
    Demarco FF; Cenci MS; Lima FG; Donassollo TA; André Dde A; Leida FL
    J Dent; 2007 Mar; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Swift EJ; Ritter AV; Heymann HO; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD
    Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation.
    Dutta BN; Gauba K; Tewari A; Chawla HS
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2001 Sep; 19(3):118-22. PubMed ID: 11817797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations.
    Hickel R; Manhart J; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):41D-54D. PubMed ID: 11763918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Clinical aspects of restorative treatment in the primary dentition.
    Varpio M
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1993; 96():1-47. PubMed ID: 8310420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Three-year clinical performance of a compomer in stress-bearing restorations in permanent posterior teeth.
    Huth KC; Manhard J; Hickel R; Kunzelmann KH
    Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 14579881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer tunnel restorations in primary molars: 36 months results.
    Markovic D; Peric T
    Aust Dent J; 2008 Mar; 53(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 18304240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions.
    Sengul F; Gurbuz T
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2015; 39(4):315-21. PubMed ID: 26161601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Clinical evaluation of atraumatic restorations in primary molars: a comparison between 2 glass ionomer cements.
    Menezes JP; Rosenblatt A; Medeiros E
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2006; 73(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 16948370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall.
    Burgess JO; Gallo JR; Ripps AH; Walker RS; Ireland EJ
    Am J Dent; 2004 Jun; 17(3):147-50. PubMed ID: 15301207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up.
    Pollington S; van Noort R
    Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 18435377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composite and Glass lonomer Restorative Material in Permanent Teeth.
    Kharma K; Zogheib T; Bhandi S; Mehanna C
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Feb; 19(2):226-232. PubMed ID: 29422475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Two-year follow-up of indirect posterior composite restorations of permanent teeth with excessive material loss in pediatric patients: a clinical study.
    Koyuturk AE; Ozmen B; Tokay U; Tuloglu N; Sari ME; Sonmez TT
    J Adhes Dent; 2013 Dec; 15(6):583-90. PubMed ID: 24278962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Partial removal of carious dentine: a multicenter randomized controlled trial and 18-month follow-up results.
    Maltz M; Jardim JJ; Mestrinho HD; Yamaguti PM; Podestá K; Moura MS; de Paula LM
    Caries Res; 2013; 47(2):103-9. PubMed ID: 23207420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.