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 *

84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24011496)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years.
    Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Kieri C
    Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15241909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 4-year clinical performance and survival analysis of Class I and II compomer restorations in permanent teeth.
    Huth KC; Manhart J; Selbertinger A; Paschos E; Kaaden C; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 15241910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jun; 25(6):750-9. PubMed ID: 19237189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.
    Huth KC; Chen HY; Mehl A; Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Dent; 2011 Jul; 39(7):478-88. PubMed ID: 21554920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    Dent Mater; 2008 Jul; 24(7):915-22. PubMed ID: 18155288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
    Stavridakis MM; Kakaboura AI; Ardu S; Krejci I
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Five-year clinical performance of two fluoride-releasing giomer resin materials in occlusal restorations.
    Ozer F; Patel R; Yip J; Yakymiv O; Saleh N; Blatz MB
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1213-1220. PubMed ID: 35934807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A two-year clinical evaluation of a new calcium aluminate cement in Class II cavities.
    van Dijken JW; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2003 Aug; 61(4):235-40. PubMed ID: 14582592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Clinical Impact of Dental Adhesives on Postoperative Sensitivity in Class I and Class II Resin-Composite Restorations.
    Manchorova-Veleva NA; Vladimirov SB; Keskinova DА
    Folia Med (Plovdiv); 2015; 57(3-4):243-9. PubMed ID: 27180352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives.
    Sabbagh J; El Masri L; Fahd JC; Nahas P
    Biomater Investig Dent; 2021; 8(1):92-103. PubMed ID: 34240061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [Evaluation of wear property of Giomer and universal composite
    Mu HL; Tian FC; Wang XY; Gao XJ
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Dec; 53(1):120-125. PubMed ID: 33550345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Effect of a Self-Etch Adhesive Containing Nanobioglass on Postoperative Sensitivity of Posterior Composite Restorations - A Randomized Trial.
    Aboelenein AZ; Riad MI; Haridy MF
    Open Access Maced J Med Sci; 2019 Jul; 7(14):2313-2320. PubMed ID: 31592280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. HEMA-free or HEMA-containing adhesive systems for non-carious cervical lesions.
    Sia CF; Levey C
    Evid Based Dent; 2018 Dec; 19(4):114-115. PubMed ID: 30573858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Although HEMA-Containing Dental Adhesive Systems Have High Hydrophilic Characteristics, Their Clinical Performance Is Similar to HEMA-Free Dental Adhesive Systems for Noncarious Cervical Lesions.
    Farsai PS
    J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2018 Dec; 18(4):336-338. PubMed ID: 30514447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Long-term survival and reasons for failure in direct anterior composite restorations: A systematic review.
    Shah YR; Shiraguppi VL; Deosarkar BA; Shelke UR
    J Conserv Dent; 2021; 24(5):415-420. PubMed ID: 35399771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The stamp technique for direct Class II composite restorations: A case series.
    Alshehadat SA; Halim MS; Carmen K; Fung CS
    J Conserv Dent; 2016; 19(5):490-3. PubMed ID: 27656074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.