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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29886630)

  • 1. [Correspondence between advances of dental composites and adhesives and clinical guidelines for direct restorations].
    Wang XY; Yue L
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2018 Jun; 53(6):374-380. PubMed ID: 29886630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Franco G; Estrada BE; Brackett WW
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 20533626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Schroeder M; Correa IC; Bauer J; Loguercio AD; Reis A
    J Dent; 2017 Jul; 62():36-53. PubMed ID: 28495559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
    Casagrande L; Dalpian DM; Ardenghi TM; Zanatta FB; Balbinot CE; García-Godoy F; De Araujo FB
    Am J Dent; 2013 Dec; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: effect of adhesive systems.
    Sundfeld RH; Scatolin RS; Oliveira FG; Machado LS; Alexandre RS; Sundefeld ML
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Directly Placed Restorative Materials: Review and Network Meta-analysis.
    Schwendicke F; Göstemeyer G; Blunck U; Paris S; Hsu LY; Tu YK
    J Dent Res; 2016 Jun; 95(6):613-22. PubMed ID: 26912220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Six-year clinical performance of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives.
    Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Swift EJ; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Lambert CA; Walter R
    Dent Mater; 2016 Sep; 32(9):1065-72. PubMed ID: 27352732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of different adhesives used in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.
    Tuncer D; Yazici AR; Özgünaltay G; Dayangac B
    Aust Dent J; 2013 Mar; 58(1):94-100. PubMed ID: 23441798
    [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. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation.
    Mena-Serrano A; Kose C; De Paula EA; Tay LY; Reis A; Loguercio AD; Perdigão J
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2013 Feb; 25(1):55-69. PubMed ID: 23374411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Influence of chlorhexidine digluconate on the clinical performance of adhesive restorations: a 3-year follow-up.
    Sartori N; Stolf SC; Silva SB; Lopes GC; Carrilho M
    J Dent; 2013 Dec; 41(12):1188-95. PubMed ID: 24076103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Marginal analysis of resin composite restorative systems using optical coherence tomography.
    Monteiro GQ; Montes MA; Gomes AS; Mota CC; Campello SL; Freitas AZ
    Dent Mater; 2011 Dec; 27(12):e213-23. PubMed ID: 21925721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. One-year clinical evaluation of an ethanol-based and a solvent-free dentin adhesive.
    Aw TC; Lepe X; Johnson GH; Mancl L
    Am J Dent; 2004 Dec; 17(6):451-6. PubMed ID: 15724760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Selected mechanical and physical properties and clinical application of a new low-shrinkage composite restoration.
    Duarte S; Botta AC; Phark JH; Sadan A
    Quintessence Int; 2009 Sep; 40(8):631-8. PubMed ID: 19639087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.