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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27011734)

  • 1. A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: Amalgam versus resin composite.
    Kemaloglu H; Pamir T; Tezel H
    Eur J Dent; 2016; 10(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 27011734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Setcos JC; Staninec M; Wilson NH
    J Adhes Dent; 1999; 1(4):323-31. PubMed ID: 11725662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The performance of bonded vs. pin-retained complex amalgam restorations: a five-year clinical evaluation.
    Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Berry TG; Robbins JW; Osborne JW; Haveman CW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Jul; 132(7):923-31. PubMed ID: 11480646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The influence of resin composite and bonded amalgam restorations on dentine permeability in Class II cavities in vitro.
    Ozok AR; De Gee AJ; Wu MK; Wesselink PR
    Dent Mater; 2001 Nov; 17(6):477-84. PubMed ID: 11567684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.
    Yazici AR; Ustunkol I; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    Oper Dent; 2014; 39(3):248-55. PubMed ID: 24754716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations.
    Al-Asmar AA; Ha Sabrah A; Abd-Raheam IM; Ismail NH; Oweis YG
    Saudi Dent J; 2023 Mar; 35(3):275-281. PubMed ID: 37091274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite.
    Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Sep; 134(9):1205-12. PubMed ID: 14528992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
    Popoff DA; Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions.
    Loguercio AD; Reis A; Barbosa AN; Roulet JF
    J Adhes Dent; 2003; 5(4):323-32. PubMed ID: 15008339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An evaluation of replacement rates for posterior resin-based composite and amalgam restorations in U.S. Navy and marine corps recruits.
    Simecek JW; Diefenderfer KE; Cohen ME
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2009 Feb; 140(2):200-9; quiz 249. PubMed ID: 19188417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Marginal fracture of posterior composite resins.
    Fukushima M; Setcos JC; Phillips RW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1988 Oct; 117(5):577-83. PubMed ID: 3066806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
    Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial).
    ElAziz RH; Mohammed MM; Gomaa HA
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Mar; 21(3):296-303. PubMed ID: 32434978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Hickel R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2009 Sep; 13(3):301-7. PubMed ID: 18998173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: a microleakage study.
    Popoff DA; Gonçalves FS; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Ferreira RC; Mjör IA
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(6):799-803. PubMed ID: 22484874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.