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 *

868 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24769385)

  • 1. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
    Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
    Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation.
    Gordan VV; Mjör IA; Vazquez O; Watson RE; Wilson N
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002; 14(5):296-302. PubMed ID: 12405585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.
    Karaman E; Yazici AR; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    J Adhes Dent; 2012 Aug; 14(5):485-92. PubMed ID: 22724113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
    Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Three-year clinical evaluation of two flowable composites.
    Gallo JR; Burgess JO; Ripps AH; Walker RS; Maltezos MB; Mercante DE; Davidson JM
    Quintessence Int; 2010 Jun; 41(6):497-503. PubMed ID: 20490392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial of direct laminate veneers with two micro-hybrid resin composites.
    Gresnigt MM; Kalk W; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2012 Sep; 40(9):766-75. PubMed ID: 22664565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Three-year prospective clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a nanofiller hybrid resin composite in Class V lesions.
    Preussker S; Pöschmann M; Kensche A; Natusch I; Koch R; Klimm W; Hannig C
    Am J Dent; 2014 Apr; 27(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 25000664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive.
    van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Feb; 17(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 25625133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Concurrent evaluation of composite internal adaptation and bond strength in a class-I cavity.
    Bakhsh TA; Sadr A; Shimada Y; Mandurah MM; Hariri I; Alsayed EZ; Tagami J; Sumi Y
    J Dent; 2013 Jan; 41(1):60-70. PubMed ID: 23044389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Durability of new restorative materials in Class III cavities.
    van Dijken JW
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 11317385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: effect of adhesive systems.
    Sundfeld RH; Scatolin RS; Oliveira FG; Machado LS; Alexandre RS; Sundefeld ML
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 44.