383 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34267000)
1. Effects of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Bulk-fill Base on the Fracture Resistance of Class II Restorations: An Original Laboratory Experimental Study.
Al-Nahedh HN
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Apr; 22(4):342-348. PubMed ID: 34267000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of bulk-fill base material on fracture strength of root-filled teeth restored with laminate resin composite restorations.
Taha NA; Maghaireh GA; Ghannam AS; Palamara JE
J Dent; 2017 Aug; 63():60-64. PubMed ID: 28571830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Fracture Resistance and Marginal Adaptation of Capped and Uncapped Bulk-fill Resin-based Materials.
Al-Nahedh HN; Alawami Z
Oper Dent; 2020; 45(2):E43-E56. PubMed ID: 31750801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations.
Al-Harbi F; Kaisarly D; Michna A; ArRejaie A; Bader D; El Gezawi M
Oper Dent; 2015; 40(6):622-35. PubMed ID: 26151459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of two different restorative techniques using resin-based composites on microleakage.
Aranha AC; Pimenta LA
Am J Dent; 2004 Apr; 17(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 15151335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Performance of bulk-fill versus conventional nanocomposite resin restorations supporting the occlusal rests of removable partial dentures: An in vitro investigation.
Mesallum EE; Abd El Aziz PM; Swelem AA
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jun; 129(6):907.e1-907.e7. PubMed ID: 37100650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fracture Load of Molars Restored with Bulk-fill, Flowable Bulk-fill, and Conventional Resin Composite After Simulated Chewing.
Guerra L; Ramos RQ; Linhares LA; Bernardon JK; Favero SS; César PF; Júnior SM
Oper Dent; 2023 May; 48(3):294-303. PubMed ID: 36656317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Fracture resistance, gap and void formation in root-filled mandibular molars restored with bulk-fill resin composites and glass-ionomer cement base.
Thongbai-On N; Chotvorrarak K; Banomyong D; Burrow MF; Osiri S; Pattaravisitsate N
J Investig Clin Dent; 2019 Nov; 10(4):e12435. PubMed ID: 31216128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of Composite Resin and Restorative Technique on Polymerization Shrinkage Stress, Cuspal Strain and Fracture Load of Weakened Premolars.
Martins LC; Oliveira LRS; Braga SSL; Soares CJ; Versluis A; Borges GA; Veríssimo C
J Adhes Dent; 2020; 22(5):503-514. PubMed ID: 33073781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Marginal Integrity of Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Class II Composite Restorations.
Al-Harbi F; Kaisarly D; Bader D; El Gezawi M
Oper Dent; 2016; 41(2):146-56. PubMed ID: 26266653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer.
Payne JH
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 10204453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. In-vitro evaluation of fracture resistance of teeth restored with different high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials and bulk-fill composite resins.
Nezir M; Ozcan S
Clin Oral Investig; 2024 May; 28(6):345. PubMed ID: 38809289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations.
Duarte JCL; Costa AR; Veríssimo C; Duarte RW; Calabrez Filho S; Spohr AM; Borges GA; Correr-Sobrinho L
Braz Dent J; 2020; 31(5):532-539. PubMed ID: 33146338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored With Bulk Fill, Bulk Fill Flowable, Fiber-reinforced, and Conventional Resin Composite.
Atalay C; Yazici AR; Horuztepe A; Nagas E; Ertan A; Ozgunaltay G
Oper Dent; 2016; 41(5):E131-E140. PubMed ID: 27352045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of glass ionomer cement or composite resin bases on restoration of cuspal stiffness of endodontically treated premolars in vitro.
Hofmann N; Just N; Haller B; Hugo B; Klaiber B
Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Jun; 2(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 15490780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored With Different Methods.
Mergulhão VA; de Mendonça LS; de Albuquerque MS; Braz R
Oper Dent; 2019; 44(1):E1-E11. PubMed ID: 30715998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Effect of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cement Base and Bulk-fill Resin Composite on Cuspal Deformation.
Nguyen KV; Wong RH; Palamara J; Burrow MF
Oper Dent; 2016; 41(2):208-18. PubMed ID: 26509230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites.
Campos EA; Ardu S; Lefever D; Jassé FF; Bortolotto T; Krejci I
J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):575-81. PubMed ID: 24561041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
