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 *

287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28000039)

  • 41. Clinical and Micromorphologic 29-year Results of Posterior Composite Restorations.
    Montag R; Dietz W; Nietzsche S; Lang T; Weich K; Sigusch BW; Gaengler P
    J Dent Res; 2018 Dec; 97(13):1431-1437. PubMed ID: 30067429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: a 2-year clinical evaluation.
    de Araujo MA; Araújo RM; Marsilio AL
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):87-93. PubMed ID: 9643241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. 1-year clinical evaluation of Compoglass and Fuji II LC in cervical erosion/abfraction lesions.
    Brackett WW; Browning WD; Ross JA; Gregory PN; Owens BM
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):119-22. PubMed ID: 10649933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing.
    Magni E; Zhang L; Hickel R; Bossù M; Polimeni A; Ferrari M
    J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 18757129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Atraumatic restorative treatment with resin-modified glass ionomer material: short-term results of a pilot study.
    Dülgergil CT; Soyman M; Civelek A
    Med Princ Pract; 2005; 14(4):277-80. PubMed ID: 15961941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study.
    Papagiannoulis L; Kakaboura A; Pantaleon F; Kavvadia K
    Pediatr Dent; 1999; 21(4):231-4. PubMed ID: 10436476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Ten-year longitudinal clinical evaluation of a visible light cured posterior composite resin.
    Shimizu T; Kitano T; Inoue M; Narikawa K; Fujii B
    Dent Mater J; 1995 Dec; 14(2):120-34. PubMed ID: 8940551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Twelve-month Clinical Performance Evaluation of a Glass Carbomer Restorative System.
    Kaynar ZB; Dönmez N
    Oper Dent; 2022 Jul; 47(4):382-391. PubMed ID: 36001813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients.
    McComb D; Erickson RL; Maxymiw WG; Wood RE
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(5):430-7. PubMed ID: 12216559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities.
    Balkaya H; Arslan S
    Oper Dent; 2020; 45(1):E32-E42. PubMed ID: 31738696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results.
    Folwaczny M; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):153-6. PubMed ID: 11572293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base.
    van de Sande FH; Rodolpho PA; Basso GR; Patias R; da Rosa QF; Demarco FF; Opdam NJ; Cenci MS
    Dent Mater; 2015 Jun; 31(6):669-75. PubMed ID: 25863523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Enamel remineralization on teeth adjacent to Class II glass ionomer restorations.
    Segura A; Donly KJ; Stratmann RG
    Am J Dent; 1997 Oct; 10(5):247-50. PubMed ID: 9522700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Clinical performance of fiber-reinforced nanofilled resin composite in extensively carious posterior teeth of children: 30-month evaluation.
    Candan U; Eronat N; Onçağ O
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2013; 38(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 24579274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite in Class III restorations.
    van Dijken JW
    Am J Dent; 1996 Oct; 9(5):195-8. PubMed ID: 9545903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years.
    Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Kieri C
    Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15241909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.