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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31661352)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Longevity of new hybrid restorative materials in class III cavities.
    van Dijken JW
    Eur J Oral Sci; 1999 Jun; 107(3):215-9. PubMed ID: 10424386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
    Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine.
    Dietrich T; Lösche AC; Lösche GM; Roulet JF
    J Dent; 1999 Feb; 27(2):119-28. PubMed ID: 10071469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Baracco B; Perdigão J; Cabrera E; Giráldez I; Ceballos L
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: a 2-year clinical evaluation.
    de Araujo MA; Araújo RM; Marsilio AL
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):87-93. PubMed ID: 9643241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.
    Koc Vural U; Meral E; Ergin E; Gürgan S
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1229-1238. PubMed ID: 31297658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Clinical evaluation of thermo-viscous and sonic fill-activated bulk fill composite restorations.
    Morsy KE; Salama MM; Genaid TM
    Am J Dent; 2023 Apr; 36(2):81-85. PubMed ID: 37076297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations.
    Yazici AR; Antonson SA; Kutuk ZB; Ergin E
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(5):478-485. PubMed ID: 28581919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: two-year results.
    Arhun N; Celik C; Yamanel K
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 20672723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations.
    Ozer F; Irmak O; Yakymiv O; Mohammed A; Pande R; Saleh N; Blatz M
    Oper Dent; 2021 Jan; 46(1):E60-E67. PubMed ID: 33882138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
    Ermiş RB
    Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Twelve-month Clinical Performance Evaluation of a Glass Carbomer Restorative System.
    Kaynar ZB; Dönmez N
    Oper Dent; 2022 Jul; 47(4):382-391. PubMed ID: 36001813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.