219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31686235)
1. Four-year clinical prospective follow-up of resin composite restoration after selective caries removal using Er:YAG laser.
Valério RA; Galo R; Galafassi D; Corona SAM; Borsatto MC
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Jul; 24(7):2271-2283. PubMed ID: 31686235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical comparison of bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: two-year follow-up.
Yazici AR; Baseren M; Gorucu J
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In vitro study of enamel and dentin marginal integrity of composite and compomer restorations placed in primary teeth after diamond or Er:YAG laser cavity preparation.
Stiesch-Scholz M; Hannig M
J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(3):213-22. PubMed ID: 11317395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Er:YAG laser in selective caries removal and dentin treatment with chitosan: a randomized clinical trial in primary molars.
Santos RMC; Scatolin RS; de Souza Salvador SL; Souza-Gabriel AE; Corona SAM
Lasers Med Sci; 2023 Sep; 38(1):208. PubMed ID: 37697177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after bur, air-abrasion or Er:YAG laser preparation.
Corona SA; Borsatto M; Dibb RG; Ramos RP; Brugnera A; Pécora JD
Oper Dent; 2001; 26(5):491-7. PubMed ID: 11551014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cavity preparation devices: effect on microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations.
Setien VJ; Cobb DS; Denehy GE; Vargas MA
Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 11572294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after conventional and Er:YAG laser preparation.
Delme KI; Deman PJ; De Moor RJ
J Oral Rehabil; 2005 Sep; 32(9):676-85. PubMed ID: 16102081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Chlorhexidine's effect on sealing ability of composite restorations following Er:YAG laser cavity preparation.
Geraldo-Martins VR; Robles FR; Matos AB
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2007 Jul; 8(5):26-33. PubMed ID: 17618327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Effect of caries removal techniques on the bond strength of adhesives to caries-affected primary dentin in vitro.
Yildiz E; Sirinkaraarslan E; Yegin Z; Cebe MA; Tosun G
Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2013 Sep; 14(3):209-14. PubMed ID: 24295006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Influence of chlorhexidine digluconate on the clinical performance of adhesive restorations: a 3-year follow-up.
Sartori N; Stolf SC; Silva SB; Lopes GC; Carrilho M
J Dent; 2013 Dec; 41(12):1188-95. PubMed ID: 24076103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. SEM evaluation of the hybrid layer after cavity preparation with Er:YAG laser.
de Barceleiro MO; Dias KR; Sales HX; Silva BC; Barceleiro CG
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(3):294-304. PubMed ID: 18505220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. ER-YAG laser pretreatment effect on in vitro secondary caries formation around composite restorations.
Ceballos L; Toledano M; Osorio R; García-Godoy F; Flaitz C; Hicks J
Am J Dent; 2001 Feb; 14(1):46-9. PubMed ID: 11806480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Adhesion to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin after long-term water storage and thermocycling.
do Amaral FL; Colucci V; de Souza-Gabriel AE; Chinelatti MA; Palma-Dibb RG; Corona SA
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):51-8. PubMed ID: 18335733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical evaluation of polyamide polymer burs for selective carious dentin removal.
Prabhakar A; Kiran NK
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Jul; 10(4):26-34. PubMed ID: 19575051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
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. 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]
19. Evaluation of micro-tensile bond strength of caries-affected human dentine after three different caries removal techniques.
Sirin Karaarslan E; Yildiz E; Cebe MA; Yegin Z; Ozturk B
J Dent; 2012 Oct; 40(10):793-801. PubMed ID: 22687577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Observational: prospective study of indirect pulp treatment in primary molars using resin-modified glass ionomer and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate: a 12-month Follow-up.
Rosenberg L; Atar M; Daronch M; Honig A; Chey M; Funny MD; Cruz L
Pediatr Dent; 2013; 35(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 23635886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
