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 *

175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30067429)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Longitudinal micromorphological 15-year results of posterior composite restorations using three-dimensional scanning electron microscopy.
    Dietz W; Montag R; Kraft U; Walther M; Sigusch BW; Gaengler P
    J Dent; 2014 Aug; 42(8):959-69. PubMed ID: 24814136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
    Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations - a 10-year report.
    Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R; Gaebler P
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Oct; 31(10):991-1000. PubMed ID: 15387840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. An in vitro investigation of marginal dentine caries abutting composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations.
    Knight GM; McIntyre JM; Craig GG; Mulyani ; Zilm PS; Gully NJ
    Aust Dent J; 2007 Sep; 52(3):187-92. PubMed ID: 17969286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach.
    Zanata RL; Navarro MF; Barbosa SH; Lauris JR; Franco EB
    J Public Health Dent; 2003; 63(4):221-6. PubMed ID: 14682645
    [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. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation.
    Gurgan S; Kutuk ZB; Ergin E; Oztas SS; Cakir FY
    Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Sep; 21(7):2335-2343. PubMed ID: 28000039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure.
    Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(1):45-64. PubMed ID: 11317384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 15. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.
    Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Watson RE; Garvan C; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 May; 138(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 17473040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study.
    Hübel S; Mejàre I
    Int J Paediatr Dent; 2003 Jan; 13(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 12542617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Marginal adaptation and retention of a glass-ionomer, resin-modified glass-ionomers and a polyacid-modified resin composite in cervical Class-V lesions.
    Gladys S; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P; Vanherle G
    Dent Mater; 1998 Jul; 14(4):294-306. PubMed ID: 10379259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 10 year comparison of glass ionomer and composite resin restoration materials in class 1 and 2 cavities.
    Hutchison C; Cave V
    Evid Based Dent; 2019 Dec; 20(4):113-114. PubMed ID: 31863046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of conventional versus colored compomers for class II restorations in primary molars: a 12-month clinical study.
    Ertugrul F; Cogulu D; Ozdemir Y; Ersin N
    Med Princ Pract; 2010; 19(2):148-52. PubMed ID: 20134179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.