448 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25893223)
1. Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope.
Heintze SD; Monreal D; Peschke A
J Adhes Dent; 2015 Apr; 17(2):147-54. PubMed ID: 25893223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Marginal Integrity of Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Class II Composite Restorations.
Al-Harbi F; Kaisarly D; Bader D; El Gezawi M
Oper Dent; 2016; 41(2):146-56. PubMed ID: 26266653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Influence of curing methods and matrix type on the marginal seal of class II resin-based composite restorations in vitro.
Hofmann N; Hunecke A
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(1):97-105. PubMed ID: 16536200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Selective enamel etching: effect on marginal adaptation of self-etch LED-cured bond systems in aged Class I composite restorations.
Souza-Junior EJ; Prieto LT; Araújo CT; Paulillo LA
Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):195-204. PubMed ID: 22313271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effectiveness of an infiltrant on sealing of composite restoration margins with/without artificial caries.
Tulunoglu O; Tulunoglu IF; Antonson SA; Campillo-Funollet M; Antonson D; Munoz-Viveros C
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2014 Nov; 15(6):717-25. PubMed ID: 25825096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Microleakage of silorane- and methacrylate-based class V composite restorations.
Krifka S; Federlin M; Hiller KA; Schmalz G
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1117-24. PubMed ID: 21947906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites.
Campos EA; Ardu S; Lefever D; Jassé FF; Bortolotto T; Krejci I
J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):575-81. PubMed ID: 24561041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations.
Malmström HS; Schlueter M; Roach T; Moss ME
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):373-80. PubMed ID: 12120775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch?
Frankenberger R; Lohbauer U; Roggendorf MJ; Naumann M; Taschner M
J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):339-44. PubMed ID: 19058678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Marginal integrity of large compomer Class II restorations with cervical margins in dentine.
Dietrich T; Kraemer M; Lösche GM; Roulet J
J Dent; 2000 Aug; 28(6):399-405. PubMed ID: 10856804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial.
Barabanti N; Gagliani M; Roulet JF; Testori T; Ozcan M; Cerutti A
J Dent; 2013 May; 41(5):436-42. PubMed ID: 23454329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine.
Dietrich T; Lösche AC; Lösche GM; Roulet JF
J Dent; 1999 Feb; 27(2):119-28. PubMed ID: 10071469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of curing unit and adhesive system on marginal adaptation of composite restorations.
Casselli DS; Faria-e-Silva AL; Casselli H; Martins LR
Gen Dent; 2012; 60(6):e408-12. PubMed ID: 23220321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites.
Furness A; Tadros MY; Looney SW; Rueggeberg FA
J Dent; 2014 Apr; 42(4):439-49. PubMed ID: 24480086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. In vitro study of enamel and dentin marginal integrity of composite and compomer restorations placed in primary teeth after diamond or Er:YAG laser cavity preparation.
Stiesch-Scholz M; Hannig M
J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(3):213-22. PubMed ID: 11317395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The competition between enamel and dentin adhesion within a cavity: an in vitro evaluation of class V restorations.
Bortolotto T; Doudou W; Kunzelmann KH; Krejci I
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1125-35. PubMed ID: 22015462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of a two-step self-etching vs two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and SEM margin analysis: four-year results.
Boeckler A; Boeckler L; Eppendorf K; Schaller HG; Gernhardt CR
J Adhes Dent; 2012 Dec; 14(6):585-92. PubMed ID: 22724115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of gingival fluid on marginal adaptation of Class II resin-based composite restorations.
Spahr A; Schön F; Haller B
Am J Dent; 2000 Oct; 13(5):261-6. PubMed ID: 11764113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
