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.
216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30527586)
1. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. van Dijken JWV; Pallesen U; Benetti A Dent Mater; 2019 Feb; 35(2):335-343. PubMed ID: 30527586 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive. van Dijken JW; Pallesen U J Adhes Dent; 2015 Feb; 17(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 25625133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. van Dijken JW; Pallesen U J Dent; 2016 Aug; 51():29-35. PubMed ID: 27238052 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Clinical evaluation of Giomer and self-etch adhesive compared with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive - Results at 8 years. Tian F; Mu H; Shi Y; Chen X; Zou X; Gao X; Wang X Dent Mater; 2024 Jul; 40(7):1088-1095. PubMed ID: 38806383 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A randomized controlled three year evaluation of "bulk-filled" posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. van Dijken JW; Pallesen U Dent Mater; 2014 Sep; 30(9):e245-51. PubMed ID: 24958689 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Fracture frequency and longevity of fractured resin composite, polyacid-modified resin composite, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement class IV restorations: an up to 14 years of follow-up. van Dijken JW; Pallesen U Clin Oral Investig; 2010 Apr; 14(2):217-22. PubMed ID: 19504133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Long term clinical performance of 'open sandwich' and 'total-etch' Class II composite resin restorations showing proximal deterioration of glass-ionomer cement. Opdam NJM; VanBeek V; VanBeek W; Loomans BAC; Pereira-Cenci T; Cenci MS; Laske M Dent Mater; 2023 Sep; 39(9):800-806. PubMed ID: 37468394 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA J Adhes Dent; 2007 Oct; 9(5):469-75. PubMed ID: 18297828 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Durability of a low shrinkage TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system in Class II restorations. A 6-year follow up. van Dijken JWV; Pallesen U Dent Mater; 2017 Aug; 33(8):944-953. PubMed ID: 28545657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Pallesen U; van Dijken JW Dent Mater; 2015 Oct; 31(10):1232-44. PubMed ID: 26321155 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation. van Dijken JWV; Pallesen U Eur J Oral Sci; 2017 Aug; 125(4):303-309. PubMed ID: 28524243 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. van Dijken JW; Pallesen U Dent Mater; 2008 Jul; 24(7):915-22. PubMed ID: 18155288 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations. Vilkinis V; Hörsted-Bindslev P; Baelum V Clin Oral Investig; 2000 Sep; 4(3):133-9. PubMed ID: 11000317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: An 18-Month Clinical Trial. Jassal M; Mittal S; Tewari S Oper Dent; 2018; 43(6):581-592. PubMed ID: 29782222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]