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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

134 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]
    of 7.