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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2659634)

  • 1. Survival rates and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations in multicentre clinical trial.
    Letzel H
    J Dent; 1989; 17 Suppl 1():S10-7; discussion S26-8. PubMed ID: 2659634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A five year study of the clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material.
    Rowe AH
    J Dent; 1989; 17 Suppl 1():S6-9; discussion S26-8. PubMed ID: 2659636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students.
    Naghipur S; Pesun I; Nowakowski A; Kim A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):336-9. PubMed ID: 27086110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.
    Ostlund J; Möller K; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 1496459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Five-year performance of high-copper content amalgam restorations in a multiclinical trial of a posterior composite.
    Wilson NH; Wastell DG; Norman RD
    J Dent; 1996 May; 24(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 8675791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth.
    Van Nieuwenhuysen JP; D'Hoore W; Carvalho J; Qvist V
    J Dent; 2003 Aug; 31(6):395-405. PubMed ID: 12878022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Despite all--do we have an appropriate substitute for amalgam?].
    Levin L; Samorodnitzky-Naveh G; Coval M; Geiger SB
    Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2008 Apr; 25(2):23-6, 73. PubMed ID: 18780542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-olds attending Public Dental Service-A 13-year observation.
    Palotie U; Eronen AK; Vehkalahti K; Vehkalahti MM
    J Dent; 2017 Jul; 62():13-17. PubMed ID: 28529175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite.
    Hayashi M; Wilson NH
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2003 Apr; 111(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 12648268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.
    Mair LH
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Aug; 29(8):483-90. PubMed ID: 9807127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.
    Bernardo M; Luis H; Martin MD; Leroux BG; Rue T; Leitão J; DeRouen TA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):775-83. PubMed ID: 17545266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure.
    Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(1):45-64. PubMed ID: 11317384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2015 Dec; 43(12):1547-58. PubMed ID: 26363442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Higher experience of caries and lower income trajectory influence the quality of restorations: A multilevel analysis in a birth cohort.
    Collares K; Opdam NJ; Peres KG; Peres MA; Horta BL; Demarco FF; Correa MB
    J Dent; 2018 Jan; 68():79-84. PubMed ID: 29169969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Jan; 23(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 16417916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Composite versus amalgam restorations. A three-year clinical evaluation.
    Hendriks FH; Letzel H; Vrijhoef MM
    J Oral Rehabil; 1986 Sep; 13(5):401-11. PubMed ID: 3464721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite.
    van Dijken JW; Lindberg A
    Dent Mater; 2015 Sep; 31(9):1150-8. PubMed ID: 26205382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.
    Soncini JA; Maserejian NN; Trachtenberg F; Tavares M; Hayes C
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):763-72. PubMed ID: 17545265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration.
    Welbury RR; Walls AW; Murray JJ; McCabe JF
    Br Dent J; 1990 Dec 8-22; 169(11):361-6. PubMed ID: 2275837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.