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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25084108)

  • 21. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):E1-11. PubMed ID: 23215545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of posterior high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations in a high caries incidence population: interim results of a randomized clinical trial.
    Durão MA; de Andrade AKM; do Prado AM; Veloso SRM; Maciel LMT; Montes MAJR; Monteiro GQM
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Nov; 25(11):6219-6237. PubMed ID: 33821322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical Evaluation of Silorane and Nano-hybrid Resin Composite Restorations in Class II Cavities up to 3 Years.
    Öztürk-Bozkurt F; Toz T; Kara-Tuncer A; Gözükara-Bağ H; Özcan M
    Oper Dent; 2016; 41(6):599-606. PubMed ID: 27589274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite.
    Ernst CP; Brandenbusch M; Meyer G; Canbek K; Gottschalk F; Willershausen B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2006 Jun; 10(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 16555069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Clinical effectiveness of a hydrophobic coating used in conjunction with a one-step self-etch adhesive: an 18-month evaluation.
    Sartori N; Peruchi LD; Guimarães JC; Silva SB; Monteiro S; Baratieri LN; Belli R
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(3):249-57. PubMed ID: 23092143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A double-blind randomized clinical trial of a silorane-based resin composite in class 2 restorations: 18-month follow-up.
    Gonçalves FS; Leal CD; Bueno AC; Freitas AB; Moreira AN; Magalhães CS
    Am J Dent; 2013 Apr; 26(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 24073532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Microhybrid versus nanofill composite in combination with a three step etch and rinse adhesive in occlusal cavities: five year results.
    Tuncer S; Demirci M; Öztaş E; Tekçe N; Uysal Ö
    Restor Dent Endod; 2017 Nov; 42(4):253-263. PubMed ID: 29142873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Preliminary data on clinical performance of bulk-fill restorations in primary molars.
    Oter B; Deniz K; Cehreli SB
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Nov; 21(11):1484-1491. PubMed ID: 30417848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: two-year results.
    Celik C; Ozgünaltay G; Attar N
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(4):313-21. PubMed ID: 17695602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Influence of flowable materials on microleakage of nanofilled and hybrid Class II composite restorations with LED and QTH LCUs.
    Sadeghi M
    Indian J Dent Res; 2009; 20(2):159-63. PubMed ID: 19553715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations.
    Pazinatto FB; Gionordoli Neto R; Wang L; Mondelli J; Mondelli RF; Navarro MF
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2012; 20(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 22858698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years.
    Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
    Quintessence Int; 2005 May; 36(5):365-72. PubMed ID: 15892534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation.
    Mena-Serrano A; Kose C; De Paula EA; Tay LY; Reis A; Loguercio AD; Perdigão J
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2013 Feb; 25(1):55-69. PubMed ID: 23374411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R; Santiago SL; Mendonça JS; Passos VF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Influence of an intermediary base on the microleakage of simulated class II composite resin restorations.
    Giorgi MC; Hernandes NM; Sugii MM; Ambrosano GM; Marchi GM; Lima DA; Aguiar FH
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(3):301-7. PubMed ID: 23937406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
    Casagrande L; Dalpian DM; Ardenghi TM; Zanatta FB; Balbinot CE; García-Godoy F; De Araujo FB
    Am J Dent; 2013 Dec; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report.
    de Souza FB; Guimarães RP; Silva CH
    Quintessence Int; 2005 Jan; 36(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 15709496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites.
    Tredwin CJ; Stokes A; Moles DR
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(1):32-8. PubMed ID: 15765955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Clinical evaluation of a two-step etch&rinse and a two-step self-etch adhesive system in Class II restorations: two-year results.
    Ermis RB; Kam O; Celik EU; Temel UB
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(6):656-63. PubMed ID: 19953774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.