577 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27238052)
21. Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT.
Heck K; Manhart J; Hickel R; Diegritz C
Dent Mater; 2018 Jun; 34(6):e138-e147. PubMed ID: 29636239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.
Balkaya H; Arslan S; Pala K
J Appl Oral Sci; 2019; 27():e20180678. PubMed ID: 31596369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up.
Endo Hoshino IA; Fraga Briso AL; Bueno Esteves LM; Dos Santos PH; Meira Borghi Frascino S; Fagundes TC
Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Sep; 26(9):5697-5710. PubMed ID: 35556174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effect of gingival wall location on the marginal seal of class ii restorations prepared with a flowable bulk-fill resin-based composite.
Segal P; Candotto V; Ben-Amar A; Eger M; Matalon S; Lauritano D; Ormianer Z
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents; 2018; 32(2 Suppl. 1):11-18. PubMed ID: 29460513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
Dent Mater; 2013 Feb; 29(2):191-8. PubMed ID: 23063254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin.
Van Ende A; De Munck J; Van Landuyt KL; Poitevin A; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B
Dent Mater; 2013 Mar; 29(3):269-77. PubMed ID: 23228335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations - An updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters.
Heintze SD; Loguercio AD; Hanzen TA; Reis A; Rousson V
Dent Mater; 2022 May; 38(5):e109-e135. PubMed ID: 35221127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Three-year Randomized Clinical Study of a One-step Universal Adhesive and a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive in Class II Composite Restorations.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
J Adhes Dent; 2017; 19(4):287-294. PubMed ID: 28849796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Effects of application method on shrinkage vectors and volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class-II restorations.
Kaisarly D; Langenegger R; Litzenburger F; Heck K; El Gezawi M; Rösch P; Kunzelmann KH
Dent Mater; 2022 Jan; 38(1):79-93. PubMed ID: 34836696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A randomized clinical split-mouth trial of a bulk-fill and a nanohybrid composite restorative in class II cavities: Three-year results.
Sekundo C; Fazeli S; Felten A; Schoilew K; Wolff D; Frese C
Dent Mater; 2022 May; 38(5):759-768. PubMed ID: 35437156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Bulk fill restoratives: to cap or not to cap--that is the question?
Tomaszewska IM; Kearns JO; Ilie N; Fleming GJ
J Dent; 2015 Mar; 43(3):309-16. PubMed ID: 25625673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results.
Colak H; Tokay U; Uzgur R; Hamidi MM; Ercan E
Niger J Clin Pract; 2017 Jul; 20(7):822-831. PubMed ID: 28791976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 24-Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins in Class II Restorations.
Guney T; Yazici AR
Oper Dent; 2020; 45(2):123-133. PubMed ID: 31693438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A 6-year clinical evaluation of Class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique.
van Dijken JW
Dent Mater; 2003 Jul; 19(5):423-8. PubMed ID: 12742438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The influence of different placement techniques on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin composites placed in Class II cavities: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical study.
Çakır Kılınç NN; Demirbuğa S
Clin Oral Investig; 2023 Feb; 27(2):541-557. PubMed ID: 36222961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years.
Poon EC; Smales RJ; Yip KH
J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1533-40. PubMed ID: 16329416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
