854 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]
