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 *

263 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24814136)

  • 21. Effect of gingival fluid on marginal adaptation of Class II resin-based composite restorations.
    Spahr A; Schön F; Haller B
    Am J Dent; 2000 Oct; 13(5):261-6. PubMed ID: 11764113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Flowable materials as an intermediate layer could improve the marginal and internal adaptation of composite restorations in Class-V-cavities.
    Li Q; Jepsen S; Albers HK; Eberhard J
    Dent Mater; 2006 Mar; 22(3):250-7. PubMed ID: 16084584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effect of new generation surface sealants on the marginal permeability of Class V resin composite restorations.
    Owens BM; Johnson WW
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):481-8. PubMed ID: 16924989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Clinical performance and wear resistance of two compomers in posterior occlusal restorations of permanent teeth: six-year follow-up.
    Lund RG; Sehn FP; Piva E; Detoni D; Moura FR; Cardoso PE; Demarco FF
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(2):118-23. PubMed ID: 17427819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites.
    Campos EA; Ardu S; Lefever D; Jassé FF; Bortolotto T; Krejci I
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):575-81. PubMed ID: 24561041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: results from a paediatric dental clinic.
    Pinto Gdos S; Oliveira LJ; Romano AR; Schardosim LR; Bonow ML; Pacce M; Correa MB; Demarco FF; Torriani DD
    J Dent; 2014 Oct; 42(10):1248-54. PubMed ID: 25150105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug; 17(5):433-41. PubMed ID: 26525008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Selective enamel etching: effect on marginal adaptation of self-etch LED-cured bond systems in aged Class I composite restorations.
    Souza-Junior EJ; Prieto LT; Araújo CT; Paulillo LA
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):195-204. PubMed ID: 22313271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Microleakage in class II restorations: open vs closed centripetal build-up technique.
    Fabianelli A; Sgarra A; Goracci C; Cantoro A; Pollington S; Ferrari M
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):308-13. PubMed ID: 20533631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Influence of curing methods and materials on the marginal seal of class V composite restorations in vitro.
    Hofmann N; Siebrecht C; Hugo B; Klaiber B
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(2):160-7. PubMed ID: 12670072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations.
    Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Hiller KA; Mortazavi F
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 9227124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
    Alves dos Santos MP; Luiz RR; Maia LC
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Clinical wear rate of direct and indirect posterior composite resin restorations.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2012 Jun; 32(3):e87-94. PubMed ID: 22408783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of curing unit and adhesive system on marginal adaptation of composite restorations.
    Casselli DS; Faria-e-Silva AL; Casselli H; Martins LR
    Gen Dent; 2012; 60(6):e408-12. PubMed ID: 23220321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results.
    Perdigão J; Dutra-Corrêa M; Saraceni SH; Ciaramicoli MT; Kiyan VH
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):591-601. PubMed ID: 22770485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
    da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
    J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Hickel R
    J Adhes Dent; 2010 Jun; 12(3):237-43. PubMed ID: 20157663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.