735 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28960769)
1. Clinical Performance and Epidemiologic Aspects of Fractured Anterior Teeth Restored with a Composite Resin: A Two-Year Clinical Study.
Vural UK; Kiremitçi A; Gökalp S
J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e204-e209. PubMed ID: 28960769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Noncarious class V lesions restored with a polyacid modified resin composite and a nanocomposite: a two-year clinical trial.
Türkün LS; Celik EU
J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):399-405. PubMed ID: 19058687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Clinical evaluation of different adhesive systems for restoring teeth with erosion lesions.
Federlin M; Thonemann B; Schmalz G; Urlinger T
Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Jun; 2(2):58-66. PubMed ID: 15490777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.
Borgia E; Baron R; Borgia JL
J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e195-e203. PubMed ID: 28513897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
Krämer N; Reinelt C; Frankenberger R
J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug; 17(5):433-41. PubMed ID: 26525008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique.
Baratieri LN; Ritter AV
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2001; 13(1):50-7. PubMed ID: 11831309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Class V lesions restored with four different tooth-colored materials--3-year results.
Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
Clin Oral Investig; 2001 Mar; 5(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 11355096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparative clinical evaluation of different treatment approaches using a microfilled resin composite and a compomer in Class III cavities: two-year results.
Demirci M; Yildiz E; Uysal O
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 18335727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of curing unit and adhesive system on marginal adaptation of composite restorations.
Casselli DS; Faria-e-Silva AL; Casselli H; Martins LR
Gen Dent; 2012; 60(6):e408-12. PubMed ID: 23220321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Three-year clinical evaluation of two flowable composites.
Gallo JR; Burgess JO; Ripps AH; Walker RS; Maltezos MB; Mercante DE; Davidson JM
Quintessence Int; 2010 Jun; 41(6):497-503. PubMed ID: 20490392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Three-year evaluation of posterior vertical bite reconstruction using direct resin composite--a case series.
Schmidlin PR; Filli T; Imfeld C; Tepper S; Attin T
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):102-8. PubMed ID: 19192844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Two-year clinical evaluation of nonvital tooth whitening and resin composite restorations.
Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2005; 17(6):369-78; discussion 379. PubMed ID: 16417833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
