139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26423500)
1. In vivo Evaluation of Proximal Resin Composite Restorations performed using Three Different Matrix Systems.
Gomes IA; Filho EM; Mariz DC; Borges AH; Tonetto MR; Firoozmand LM; Kuga CM; De Jesus RR; Bandéca MC
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 Aug; 16(8):643-7. PubMed ID: 26423500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations with different matrix systems.
Cenci MS; Lund RG; Pereira CL; de Carvalho RM; Demarco FF
J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 16708725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings.
Demarco FF; Cenci MS; Lima FG; Donassollo TA; André Dde A; Leida FL
J Dent; 2007 Mar; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. One-year comparison of metallic and translucent matrices in Class II composite resin restorations.
Cenci MS; Demarco FF; Pereira CL; Lund RG; de Carvalho RM
Am J Dent; 2007 Feb; 20(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 17380807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Class II composite restorations and proximal concavities: clinical implications and management.
Patras M; Doukoudakis S
Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 22788722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in Class II resin composite restorations.
Kampouropoulos D; Paximada C; Loukidis M; Kakaboura A
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(4):454-62. PubMed ID: 20672731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction.
Chuang SF; Su KC; Wang CH; Chang CH
J Dent; 2011 Jun; 39(6):448-56. PubMed ID: 21504778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of Class II resin composite restorations.
Saber MH; Loomans BA; El Zohairy A; Dörfer CE; El-Badrawy W
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 20166409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Resin composite contours.
Sidelsky H
Br Dent J; 2010 May; 208(9):395-401. PubMed ID: 20448605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo.
Wirsching E; Loomans BA; Klaiber B; Dörfer CE
J Dent; 2011 May; 39(5):386-90. PubMed ID: 21414384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations.
Aggarwal V; Logani A; Jain V; Shah N
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):587-92. PubMed ID: 18833866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Posterior composite resin restorations. Part 3. Matrix systems.
van der Vyver PJ
SADJ; 2002 Jun; 57(6):221-6. PubMed ID: 12229077
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Creating tight proximal contacts for MOD resin composite restorations.
Saber MH; El-Badrawy W; Loomans BA; Ahmed DR; Dörfer CE; El Zohairy A
Oper Dent; 2011; 36(3):304-10. PubMed ID: 21740239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Duplicating the form and function of posterior teeth with Class II resin-based composite.
Christensen JJ
Gen Dent; 2012; 60(2):104-8; quiz 109-10. PubMed ID: 22414503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of various placement techniques on the microhardness of Class II (slot) resin composite restorations.
Moosavi H; Abedini S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Sep; 10(5):E009-16. PubMed ID: 19838605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations.
Müllejans R; Badawi MO; Raab WH; Lang H
Oper Dent; 2003; 28(2):122-6. PubMed ID: 12670066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of Class II composite resin restorations.
Loomans BA; Roeters FJ; Opdam NJ; Kuijs RH
J Dent; 2008 Oct; 36(10):828-32. PubMed ID: 18621458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
