244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25802222)
1. A 4-year clinical evaluation of direct composite build-ups for space closure after orthodontic treatment.
Demirci M; Tuncer S; Öztaş E; Tekçe N; Uysal Ö
Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Dec; 19(9):2187-99. PubMed ID: 25802222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical Performance of Different Solvent-based Dentin Adhesives With Nanofill or Nanohybrid Composites in Class III Restorations: Five Year Results.
Demirci M; Tuncer S; Sancaklı HS; Tekçe N; Baydemir C
Oper Dent; 2017; 42(4):E111-E120. PubMed ID: 28682703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches.
Baracco B; Fuentes MV; Ceballos L
Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Jun; 20(5):991-1001. PubMed ID: 26388406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative clinical evaluation of different treatment approaches using a microfilled resin composite and a compomer in Class III cavities: two-year results.
Demirci M; Yildiz E; Uysal O
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 18335727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up.
Demirci M; Tuncer S; Tekçe N; Öztaş E; Baydemir C
Oper Dent; 2023 Sep; 48(5):E106-E118. PubMed ID: 37503637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Recontouring teeth and closing diastemas with direct composite buildups: a 5-year follow-up.
Frese C; Schiller P; Staehle HJ; Wolff D
J Dent; 2013 Nov; 41(11):979-85. PubMed ID: 23954577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Influence of chlorhexidine digluconate on the clinical performance of adhesive restorations: a 3-year follow-up.
Sartori N; Stolf SC; Silva SB; Lopes GC; Carrilho M
J Dent; 2013 Dec; 41(12):1188-95. PubMed ID: 24076103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining.
Guéders AM; Charpentier JF; Albert AI; Geerts SO
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):450-5. PubMed ID: 16924985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions.
Lawson NC; Robles A; Fu CC; Lin CP; Sawlani K; Burgess JO
J Dent; 2015 Oct; 43(10):1229-34. PubMed ID: 26231300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Jul; 19(6):1371-9. PubMed ID: 25359327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Comparison of two different composite resins used for tooth reshaping and diastema closure in a 4-year follow-up.
Ergin E; Kutuk ZB; Cakir FY; Gurgan S
Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Sep; 21(9):1098-1106. PubMed ID: 30156192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: effect of adhesive systems.
Sundfeld RH; Scatolin RS; Oliveira FG; Machado LS; Alexandre RS; Sundefeld ML
Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Two-year clinical performance of self-etching adhesive systems in composite restorations of anterior teeth.
Barcellos DC; Batista GR; Silva MA; Pleffken PR; Rangel PM; Fernandes VV; Di Nicoló R; Torres CR
Oper Dent; 2013; 38(3):258-66. PubMed ID: 23110580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of Surface Sealant Reapplication on Clinical Performance of HEMA-containing and HEMA-free Self-etch Adhesives: Two-year Results.
Tekçe N; Demirci M; Tuncer S; Göktürk SA
Oper Dent; 2018; 43(5):488-500. PubMed ID: 29782221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
