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 *

224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23614660)

  • 1. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(1):32-42. PubMed ID: 23614660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM; Hamama HH
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Aug; 10(4):315-22. PubMed ID: 18792703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
    Dresch W; Volpato S; Gomes JC; Ribeiro NR; Reis A; Loguercio AD
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 16924980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with class II MOD cavities restored with Ormocer, Nanofilled, and Nanoceramic composite restorative systems.
    Taha DG; Abdel-Samad AA; Mahmoud SH
    Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(7):579-87. PubMed ID: 21716986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.
    Yazici AR; Ustunkol I; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(3):248-55. PubMed ID: 24754716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y
    Am J Dent; 2006 Aug; 19(4):236-40. PubMed ID: 16939030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Five-year Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled and a Nanohybrid Composite in Class IV Cavities.
    Demirci M; Tuncer S; Sancakli HS; Tekçe N; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2018; 43(3):261-271. PubMed ID: 29533716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y; Koray F
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. A three-year prospective randomized study of silorane- and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems in class II restorations.
    Mahmoud SH; Ali AK; Hegazi HA
    J Adhes Dent; 2014 Jun; 16(3):285-92. PubMed ID: 24779025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Jacquet W; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2009 Mar; 37(3):198-203. PubMed ID: 19131153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite.
    van Dijken JW; Lindberg A
    Dent Mater; 2015 Sep; 31(9):1150-8. PubMed ID: 26205382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.
    Loguercio AD; Reis A; Hernandez PA; Macedo RP; Busato AL
    J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Feb; 33(2):144-51. PubMed ID: 16457675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):E1-11. PubMed ID: 23215545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. One-year evaluation of two hybrid composites placed in a randomized-controlled clinical trial.
    Beck F; Dumitrescu N; König F; Graf A; Bauer P; Sperr W; Moritz A; Schedle A
    Dent Mater; 2014 Aug; 30(8):824-38. PubMed ID: 24946982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.