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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25084108)

  • 1. Resin composite class I restorations: a 54-month randomized clinical trial.
    de Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Medeiros e Silva FD; Batista AU; Lima KC; Monteiro GQ; Montes MA
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(6):588-94. PubMed ID: 25084108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Sadeghi M; Lynch CD; Shahamat N
    J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Nanohybrid versus nanofill composite in class I cavities: margin analysis after 12 months.
    de Andrade AK; Duarte RM; Guedes Lima SJ; Passos TA; Lima KC; Montes MA
    Microsc Res Tech; 2011 Jan; 74(1):23-7. PubMed ID: 21181706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
    Popoff DA; Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth.
    Can Say E; Kayahan B; Ozel E; Gokce K; Soyman M; Bayirli G
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 May; 7(2):17-25. PubMed ID: 16685291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Two-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations.
    Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Ceballos L
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(6):591-600. PubMed ID: 23570300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up.
    Gönülol N; Kalyoncuoğlu E; Ertaş E; Misilli T
    Clin Oral Investig; 2019 May; 23(5):2323-2330. PubMed ID: 30293184
    [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. Clinical Performance of Nanofilled and Microhybrid Direct Composite Restorations on Endodontically Treated Teeth.
    Akalιn TT; Bozkurt FO; Tuncer AK; Bağ HG; Özcan M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2019 Feb; 27(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 30779495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation.
    Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(1):32-42. PubMed ID: 23614660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Five-year Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled and a Nanohybrid Composite in Class IV Cavities.
    Demirci M; Tuncer S; Sancakli HS; Tekçe N; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2018; 43(3):261-271. PubMed ID: 29533716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
    Dresch W; Volpato S; Gomes JC; Ribeiro NR; Reis A; Loguercio AD
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 16924980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.