284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31273529)
1. Effect of cavity lining on the restoration of root surface carious lesions: a split-mouth, 5-year randomized controlled clinical trial.
Koc Vural U; Gokalp S; Kiremitci A
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):979-989. PubMed ID: 31273529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical Performance of Composite Restorations with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Lining in Root Surface Carious Lesions.
Koc Vural U; Gökalp S; Kiremitci A
Oper Dent; 2016; 41(3):268-75. PubMed ID: 26794189
[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. Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions.
Santiago SL; Passos VF; Vieira AH; Navarro MF; Lauris JR; Franco EB
Braz Dent J; 2010; 21(3):229-34. PubMed ID: 21203706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.
Koc Vural U; Kerimova L; Kiremitci A
Odontology; 2021 Apr; 109(2):376-384. PubMed ID: 32902766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions.
Loguercio AD; Reis A; Barbosa AN; Roulet JF
J Adhes Dent; 2003; 5(4):323-32. PubMed ID: 15008339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: a randomized clinical trial.
Gonçalves DFM; Shinohara MS; Carvalho PRMA; Ramos FSES; Oliveira LC; Omoto ÉM; Fagundes TC
J Appl Oral Sci; 2021; 29():e20210192. PubMed ID: 34705986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials.
Ahmed B; Wafaie RA; Hamama HH; Mahmoud SH
Sci Rep; 2024 Feb; 14(1):4942. PubMed ID: 38418863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Two-year clinical study on postoperative pulpal complications arising from the absence of a glass-ionomer lining in deep occlusal resin-composite restorations.
Banomyong D; Messer H
J Investig Clin Dent; 2013 Nov; 4(4):265-70. PubMed ID: 23355492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial.
Oz FD; Meral E; Ergİn E; Gurgan S
J Appl Oral Sci; 2020; 28():e20200311. PubMed ID: 33111883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Margin Integrity and Secondary Caries of Lined or Non-lined Composite and Glass Hybrid Restorations After Selective Excavation In Vitro.
Schwendicke F; Kniess J; Paris S; Blunck U
Oper Dent; 2017; 42(2):155-164. PubMed ID: 27802124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Internal adaptation of resin composite restorations with different thicknesses of glass ionomer cement lining.
Chailert O; Banomyong D; Vongphan N; Ekworapoj P; Burrow MF
J Investig Clin Dent; 2018 May; 9(2):e12308. PubMed ID: 29226608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up.
Pollington S; van Noort R
Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 18435377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hinkel R
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
