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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3464721)

  • 1. Composite versus amalgam restorations. A three-year clinical evaluation.
    Hendriks FH; Letzel H; Vrijhoef MM
    J Oral Rehabil; 1986 Sep; 13(5):401-11. PubMed ID: 3464721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations.
    Johnson GH; Bales DJ; Gordon GE; Powell LV
    Quintessence Int; 1992 Oct; 23(10):705-11. PubMed ID: 1289954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study.
    Cloyd S; Gilpatrick RO; Moore D
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1997 Oct; 77(4):36-40. PubMed ID: 9520761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Three-year clinical evaluation of cuspal coverage with combined composite-amalgam in endodontically-treated maxillary premolars.
    Shafiei F; Memarpour M; Doozandeh M
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):599-604. PubMed ID: 21179997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars.
    Fuks AB; Araujo FB; Osorio LB; Hadani PE; Pinto AS
    Pediatr Dent; 2000; 22(6):479-85. PubMed ID: 11132507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.
    Ostlund J; Möller K; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 1496459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months.
    Holan G; Chosack A; Eidelman E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1996; 63(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 8958346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-olds attending Public Dental Service-A 13-year observation.
    Palotie U; Eronen AK; Vehkalahti K; Vehkalahti MM
    J Dent; 2017 Jul; 62():13-17. PubMed ID: 28529175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation.
    Marks LA; Weerheijm KL; van Amerongen WE; Groen HJ; Martens LC
    Caries Res; 1999; 33(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 10460963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Six-month and one-year clinical evaluation of a composite resin for class II restorations.
    Nuckles DB; Fingar WW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1975 Nov; 91(5):1017-22. PubMed ID: 1058913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
    Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
    [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. Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial.
    Barabanti N; Gagliani M; Roulet JF; Testori T; Ozcan M; Cerutti A
    J Dent; 2013 May; 41(5):436-42. PubMed ID: 23454329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Setcos JC; Staninec M; Wilson NH
    J Adhes Dent; 1999; 1(4):323-31. PubMed ID: 11725662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Composite resin-amalgam compound restorations.
    Franchi M; Trisi P; Montanari G; Piattelli A
    Quintessence Int; 1994 Aug; 25(8):577-82. PubMed ID: 7568708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Time required to remove totally bonded tooth-colored posterior restorations and related tooth substance loss.
    Krejci I; Lieber CM; Lutz F
    Dent Mater; 1995 Jan; 11(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 7498606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.