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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27589274)

  • 1. Clinical Evaluation of Silorane and Nano-hybrid Resin Composite Restorations in Class II Cavities up to 3 Years.
    Öztürk-Bozkurt F; Toz T; Kara-Tuncer A; Gözükara-Bağ H; Özcan M
    Oper Dent; 2016; 41(6):599-606. PubMed ID: 27589274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up.
    Gönülol N; Kalyoncuoğlu E; Ertaş E; Misilli T
    Clin Oral Investig; 2019 May; 23(5):2323-2330. PubMed ID: 30293184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Two-year clinical performance of dimethacrylatebased composite restorations repaired with a silorane-based composite.
    Popoff DA; de Magalhães CS; de Freitas Oliveira W; Soares LA; de Almeida Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
    J Adhes Dent; 2014 Dec; 16(6):575-83. PubMed ID: 25516879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Randomized controlled trial of the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in class 1 posterior restorations.
    Efes BG; Yaman BC; Gurbuz O; Gumuştaş B
    Am J Dent; 2013 Feb; 26(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 23724547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A three-year prospective randomized study of silorane- and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems in class II restorations.
    Mahmoud SH; Ali AK; Hegazi HA
    J Adhes Dent; 2014 Jun; 16(3):285-92. PubMed ID: 24779025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. A double-blind randomized clinical trial of a silorane-based resin composite in class 2 restorations: 18-month follow-up.
    Gonçalves FS; Leal CD; Bueno AC; Freitas AB; Moreira AN; Magalhães CS
    Am J Dent; 2013 Apr; 26(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 24073532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: two-year results.
    Arhun N; Celik C; Yamanel K
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 20672723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches.
    Baracco B; Fuentes MV; Ceballos L
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Jun; 20(5):991-1001. PubMed ID: 26388406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Giráldez I; Ceballos L
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical Evaluation of a Silorane- and a Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite in Class II Restorations: 24-Month Results.
    Karaman E; Yazici AR; Ozgunaltay G; Ustunkol I; Berber A
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(4):E102-E110. PubMed ID: 28682704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results.
    Pascon FM; Kantovitz KR; Caldo-Teixeira AS; Borges AF; Silva TN; Puppin-Rontani RM; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Dent; 2006 Jul; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results.
    Perdigão J; Dutra-Corrêa M; Saraceni SH; Ciaramicoli MT; Kiyan VH
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):591-601. PubMed ID: 22770485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial.
    Barabanti N; Gagliani M; Roulet JF; Testori T; Ozcan M; Cerutti A
    J Dent; 2013 May; 41(5):436-42. PubMed ID: 23454329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices.
    Burke FJ; Crisp RJ; James A; Mackenzie L; Pal A; Sands P; Thompson O; Palin WM
    Dent Mater; 2011 Jul; 27(7):622-30. PubMed ID: 21514654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.