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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33882138)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Five-year clinical performance of two fluoride-releasing giomer resin materials in occlusal restorations.
    Ozer F; Patel R; Yip J; Yakymiv O; Saleh N; Blatz MB
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1213-1220. PubMed ID: 35934807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of the clinical performance of GIOMERs and comparison with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Neto CCL; das Neves AM; Arantes DC; Sa TCM; Yamauti M; de Magalhães CS; Abreu LG; Moreira AN
    Evid Based Dent; 2022 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 35915167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation.
    Gordan VV; Mjör IA; Vazquez O; Watson RE; Wilson N
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002; 14(5):296-302. PubMed ID: 12405585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical Evaluation of Low-shrinkage Bioactive Material Giomer Versus Nanohybrid Resin Composite Restorations: A Two-year Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial.
    Toz-Akalin T; Öztürk-Bozkurt F; Kusdemir M; Özsoy A; Yüzbaşıoğlu E; Özcan M
    Oper Dent; 2023 Jan; 48(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 36508717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
    Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y; Koray F
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities.
    Balkaya H; Arslan S
    Oper Dent; 2020; 45(1):E32-E42. PubMed ID: 31738696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner.
    Ernst CP; Canbek K; Aksogan K; Willershausen B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Sep; 7(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 12898294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Three-year clinical evaluation of two flowable composites.
    Gallo JR; Burgess JO; Ripps AH; Walker RS; Maltezos MB; Mercante DE; Davidson JM
    Quintessence Int; 2010 Jun; 41(6):497-503. PubMed ID: 20490392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Noncarious class V lesions restored with a polyacid modified resin composite and a nanocomposite: a two-year clinical trial.
    Türkün LS; Celik EU
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):399-405. PubMed ID: 19058687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.
    Karaman E; Yazici AR; Ozgunaltay G; Dayangac B
    J Adhes Dent; 2012 Aug; 14(5):485-92. PubMed ID: 22724113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 19. Two-year clinical performance of dimethacrylatebased composite restorations repaired with a silorane-based composite.
    Popoff DA; de Magalhães CS; de Freitas Oliveira W; Soares LA; de Almeida Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
    J Adhes Dent; 2014 Dec; 16(6):575-83. PubMed ID: 25516879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 24-Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins in Class II Restorations.
    Guney T; Yazici AR
    Oper Dent; 2020; 45(2):123-133. PubMed ID: 31693438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.