459 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24958689)
21. Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up.
Endo Hoshino IA; Fraga Briso AL; Bueno Esteves LM; Dos Santos PH; Meira Borghi Frascino S; Fagundes TC
Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Sep; 26(9):5697-5710. PubMed ID: 35556174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.
Yazici AR; Ustunkol I; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
Oper Dent; 2014; 39(3):248-55. PubMed ID: 24754716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin.
Van Ende A; De Munck J; Van Landuyt KL; Poitevin A; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B
Dent Mater; 2013 Mar; 29(3):269-77. PubMed ID: 23228335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
Dent Mater; 2013 Feb; 29(2):191-8. PubMed ID: 23063254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effects of flowable resin on bond strength and gap formation in Class I restorations.
Miguez PA; Pereira PN; Foxton RM; Walter R; Nunes MF; Swift EJ
Dent Mater; 2004 Nov; 20(9):839-45. PubMed ID: 15451239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A 7-year randomized prospective study of a one-step self-etching adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. The effect of curing modes and restorative material.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
J Dent; 2012 Dec; 40(12):1060-7. PubMed ID: 22955004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations - An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters.
Heintze SD; Loguercio AD; Hanzen TA; Reis A; Rousson V
Dent Mater; 2022 May; 38(5):e109-e135. PubMed ID: 35221127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations.
Loguercio AD; Rezende M; Gutierrez MF; Costa TF; Armas-Vega A; Reis A
J Dent; 2019 Jun; 85():93-102. PubMed ID: 31100332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A 6-year clinical evaluation of Class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique.
van Dijken JW
Dent Mater; 2003 Jul; 19(5):423-8. PubMed ID: 12742438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 24-Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins in Class II Restorations.
Guney T; Yazici AR
Oper Dent; 2020; 45(2):123-133. PubMed ID: 31693438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques.
Siso SH; Hürmüzlü F; Turgut M; Altundaşar E; Serper A; Er K
Int Endod J; 2007 Mar; 40(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 17305692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. In vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation in medium- and large size direct class II restorations using a bulk-fill or layering technique.
Dietschi D; Curto FD; Di Bella E; Krejci I; Ardu S
J Dent; 2021 Dec; 115():103828. PubMed ID: 34678337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Performance of bulk-fill versus conventional nanocomposite resin restorations supporting the occlusal rests of removable partial dentures: An in vitro investigation.
Mesallum EE; Abd El Aziz PM; Swelem AA
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jun; 129(6):907.e1-907.e7. PubMed ID: 37100650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A randomized clinical split-mouth trial of a bulk-fill and a nanohybrid composite restorative in class II cavities: Three-year results.
Sekundo C; Fazeli S; Felten A; Schoilew K; Wolff D; Frese C
Dent Mater; 2022 May; 38(5):759-768. PubMed ID: 35437156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
J Adhes Dent; 2014 Dec; 16(6):585-92. PubMed ID: 25516885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
