132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25480695)
41. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. 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]
43. 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]
44. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: a prospective 8 years follow up.
Pallesen U; van Dijken JW; Halken J; Hallonsten AL; Höigaard R
J Dent; 2013 Apr; 41(4):297-306. PubMed ID: 23228499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Two-year retrospective evaluation of monoshade universal composites in direct veneer and diastema closure restorations.
Korkut B; Ünal T; Can E
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2023 Apr; 35(3):525-537. PubMed ID: 36478098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Clinical Performance of Posterior Microhybrid Resin Composite Restorations Applied Using Regular and High-Power Mode Polymerization Protocols According to USPHS and SQUACE Criteria: 10-Year Randomized Controlled Split-Mouth Trial.
Cerutti A; Barabanti N; Özcan M
J Adhes Dent; 2020; 22(4):343-351. PubMed ID: 32666060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite in Class III restorations.
van Dijken JW
Am J Dent; 1996 Oct; 9(5):195-8. PubMed ID: 9545903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years.
Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Kieri C
Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15241909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. 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]
51. 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]
52. A 24-month follow-up of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in non-carious cervical lesions.
Reis A; Loguercio AD
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(5):523-9. PubMed ID: 17024938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. 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]
54. Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure.
Kopperud SE; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I
Eur J Oral Sci; 2012 Dec; 120(6):539-48. PubMed ID: 23167471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. 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]
56. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.
Wucher M; Grobler SR; Senekal PJ
Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):274-8. PubMed ID: 12572648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 12744410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. 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]
60. Long-term survival of Cerec restorations: a 10-year study.
Zimmer S; Göhlich O; Rüttermann S; Lang H; Raab WH; Barthel CR
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):484-7. PubMed ID: 18833853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
