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.
272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24814136)
1. Longitudinal micromorphological 15-year results of posterior composite restorations using three-dimensional scanning electron microscopy. Dietz W; Montag R; Kraft U; Walther M; Sigusch BW; Gaengler P J Dent; 2014 Aug; 42(8):959-69. PubMed ID: 24814136 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. Clinical and Micromorphologic 29-year Results of Posterior Composite Restorations. Montag R; Dietz W; Nietzsche S; Lang T; Weich K; Sigusch BW; Gaengler P J Dent Res; 2018 Dec; 97(13):1431-1437. PubMed ID: 30067429 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Influence of dentin conditioning and contamination on the marginal integrity of sandwich Class II restorations. Dietrich T; Kraemer M; Lösche GM; Wernecke KD; Roulet JF Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):401-10. PubMed ID: 11203848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reliability of different techniques to assess marginal defects of Class II restorations in retrieved primary molars: a visual-tactile, SEM, dye penetration and polarized light microscopy study. Fuks AB; Araujo FB; Donly KJ; Cervantes M Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2002 Oct; 19(4):6-16, 67. PubMed ID: 12510251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results. Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Giráldez I; Ceballos L Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
16. Influence of Cavity Margin Design and Restorative Material on Marginal Quality and Seal of Extended Class II Resin Composite Restorations In Vitro. Soliman S; Preidl R; Karl S; Hofmann N; Krastl G; Klaiber B J Adhes Dent; 2016; 18(1):7-16. PubMed ID: 26814320 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope. Heintze SD; Monreal D; Peschke A J Adhes Dent; 2015 Apr; 17(2):147-54. PubMed ID: 25893223 [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. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations. Aggarwal V; Logani A; Jain V; Shah N Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):587-92. PubMed ID: 18833866 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]