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.
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]