448 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23496025)
1. Direct composite restorations for the worn mandibular anterior dentition: a 7-year follow-up of a prospective randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial.
Al-Khayatt AS; Ray-Chaudhuri A; Poyser NJ; Briggs PF; Porter RW; Kelleher MG; Eliyas S
J Oral Rehabil; 2013 May; 40(5):389-401. PubMed ID: 23496025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Survival analysis of composite Dahl restorations provided to manage localised anterior tooth wear (ten year follow-up).
Gulamali AB; Hemmings KW; Tredwin CJ; Petrie A
Br Dent J; 2011 Aug; 211(4):E9. PubMed ID: 21869770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The evaluation of direct composite restorations for the worn mandibular anterior dentition - clinical performance and patient satisfaction.
Poyser NJ; Briggs PF; Chana HS; Kelleher MG; Porter RW; Patel MM
J Oral Rehabil; 2007 May; 34(5):361-76. PubMed ID: 17441877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured composite resin versus ceramic single-tooth restorations: a 3-year clinical study.
Vanoorbeek S; Vandamme K; Lijnen I; Naert I
Int J Prosthodont; 2010; 23(3):223-30. PubMed ID: 20552087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Three-year evaluation of posterior vertical bite reconstruction using direct resin composite--a case series.
Schmidlin PR; Filli T; Imfeld C; Tepper S; Attin T
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):102-8. PubMed ID: 19192844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Four-year clinical evaluation of two self-etching dentin adhesives of different pH values used to restore non-retentive cervical lesions.
Söderholm KJ; Ottenga M; Nimmo S
Am J Dent; 2013 Feb; 26(1):28-32. PubMed ID: 23724546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a 5-year follow-up.
Frese C; Schiller P; Staehle HJ; Wolff D
J Dent; 2013 Nov; 41(11):979-85. PubMed ID: 23954577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions.
Brackett MG; Dib A; Franco G; Estrada BE; Brackett WW
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 20533626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth?
Baldissera RA; Corrêa MB; Schuch HS; Collares K; Nascimento GG; Jardim PS; Moraes RR; Opdam NJ; Demarco FF
J Dent; 2013 Nov; 41(11):1027-35. PubMed ID: 24001506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Adhesively restored anterior maxillary dentitions affected by severe erosion: up to 6-year results of a prospective clinical study.
Vailati F; Gruetter L; Belser UC
Eur J Esthet Dent; 2013; 8(4):506-30. PubMed ID: 24624375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Noncarious cervical lesions restored with three different tooth-colored materials: two-year results.
Stojanac IL; Premovic MT; Ramic BD; Drobac MR; Stojsin IM; Petrovic LM
Oper Dent; 2013; 38(1):12-20. PubMed ID: 22856681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The survival of direct composite restorations in the management of severe tooth wear including attrition and erosion: A prospective 8-year study.
Milosevic A; Burnside G
J Dent; 2016 Jan; 44():13-9. PubMed ID: 26542166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R
J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
