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.
619 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26266653)
1. 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]
2. Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations. Al-Harbi F; Kaisarly D; Michna A; ArRejaie A; Bader D; El Gezawi M Oper Dent; 2015; 40(6):622-35. PubMed ID: 26151459 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Marginal Gap Formation in Approximal "Bulk Fill" Resin Composite Restorations After Artificial Ageing. Peutzfeldt A; Mühlebach S; Lussi A; Flury S Oper Dent; 2018; 43(2):180-189. PubMed ID: 29148914 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Effect of two different restorative techniques using resin-based composites on microleakage. Aranha AC; Pimenta LA Am J Dent; 2004 Apr; 17(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 15151335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Performance of bulk-fill versus conventional nanocomposite resin restorations supporting the occlusal rests of removable partial dentures: An in vitro investigation. Mesallum EE; Abd El Aziz PM; Swelem AA J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jun; 129(6):907.e1-907.e7. PubMed ID: 37100650 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of refrigeration of different Resin composite restorative materials on the marginal adaptation in class II restorations. El-Maksoud OA; Hamama H; Wafaie RA; El-Wassefy N; Mahmoud SH BMC Oral Health; 2024 Oct; 24(1):1174. PubMed ID: 39363215 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. Roggendorf MJ; Krämer N; Appelt A; Naumann M; Frankenberger R J Dent; 2011 Oct; 39(10):643-7. PubMed ID: 21801799 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Comparative evaluation of marginal microleakage of three different resins in Class V composite restorations]. Zhu Z; Zhu YQ Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2017 Jun; 26(3):241-245. PubMed ID: 29098237 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. In Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Direct Class II Composite Restorations Made of Different "Low-Shrinkage" Systems. Shahidi C; Krejci I; Dietschi D Oper Dent; 2017; 42(3):273-283. PubMed ID: 28467259 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Modification of the restoration protocol for resin-based composite (RBC) restoratives (conventional and bulk fill) on cuspal movement and microleakage score in molar teeth. Politi I; McHugh LEJ; Al-Fodeh RS; Fleming GJP Dent Mater; 2018 Sep; 34(9):1271-1277. PubMed ID: 29857989 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations. Duarte JCL; Costa AR; Veríssimo C; Duarte RW; Calabrez Filho S; Spohr AM; Borges GA; Correr-Sobrinho L Braz Dent J; 2020; 31(5):532-539. PubMed ID: 33146338 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of pre-heated composites and flowable liners on Class II gingival margin gap formation. Sabatini C; Blunck U; Denehy G; Munoz C Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):663-71. PubMed ID: 21180006 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of Internal Adaptation in Class II Bulk-fill Composite Restorations Using Micro-CT. Han SH; Park SH Oper Dent; 2017; 42(2):203-214. PubMed ID: 27892836 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]