193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28545657)
21. 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]
22. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 16956709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. A randomized controlled clinical trial of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year.
Van Landuyt KL; Peumans M; Fieuws S; De Munck J; Cardoso MV; Ermis RB; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
J Dent; 2008 Oct; 36(10):847-55. PubMed ID: 18656295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. 3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions.
Moretto SG; Russo EM; Carvalho RC; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Cardoso MV
J Dent; 2013 Aug; 41(8):675-82. PubMed ID: 23747824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students.
Opdam NJ; Loomans BA; Roeters FJ; Bronkhorst EM
J Dent; 2004 Jul; 32(5):379-83. PubMed ID: 15193786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Three-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions.
Van Landuyt KL; Peumans M; De Munck J; Cardoso MV; Ermis B; Van Meerbeek B
Eur J Oral Sci; 2011 Dec; 119(6):511-6. PubMed ID: 22112039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Longevity of extensive class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement.
van Dijken JW; Kieri C; Carlén M
J Dent Res; 1999 Jul; 78(7):1319-25. PubMed ID: 10403459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
Stavridakis MM; Kakaboura AI; Ardu S; Krejci I
Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.
Wucher M; Grobler SR; Senekal PJ
Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):274-8. PubMed ID: 12572648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A 7-year randomized prospective study of a one-step self-etching adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. The effect of curing modes and restorative material.
van Dijken JW; Pallesen U
J Dent; 2012 Dec; 40(12):1060-7. PubMed ID: 22955004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
