213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35608683)
1. Comparison of a resin-based sealant with a nano-filled flowable resin composite on sealing performance of marginal defects in resin composites restorations: a 36-months clinical evaluation.
Estay J; Pardo-Díaz C; Reinoso E; Perez-Iñigo J; Martín J; Jorquera G; Kuga M; Fernández E
Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Oct; 26(10):6087-6095. PubMed ID: 35608683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of Sealing Marginal Occlusal Defects of Composite Restorations with a Nanofiller-Reinforced Flowable Resin Composite: A Double-Blind, Randomised Clinical Trial with One-Year Follow-Up.
Estay J; Bersezio C; Faune J; Correa MP; Angel P; Martín J; Fernández E
Oral Health Prev Dent; 2018; 16(6):491-497. PubMed ID: 30574603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A 24-month clinical evaluation of composite resins with different viscosity and chemical compositions: a randomized clinical trial.
Matos TP; Nuñez A; Méndez-Bauer M; Ñaupari-Villasante R; Barceleiro M; Duarte L; Reis A; Loguercio AD
Quintessence Int; 2023 Mar; 54(3):186-199. PubMed ID: 36445776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations.
Qin M; Liu H
Oper Dent; 2005; 30(5):580-7. PubMed ID: 16268391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
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. Does a Self-adhesive Flowable Resin Composite Perform Similarly to Highly Filled and Conventional Flowable Resin Composites in Occlusal Cavities? A 2-year Follow-up Study.
Oz FD; Meral E; Gurgan S
J Adhes Dent; 2021 Dec; 23(6):497-503. PubMed ID: 34817965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.
Balkaya H; Arslan S; Pala K
J Appl Oral Sci; 2019; 27():e20180678. PubMed ID: 31596369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
Popoff DA; Santa Rosa TT; Ferreira RC; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Mjör IA
Oper Dent; 2012; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations.
Gordan VV; Shen C; Riley J; Mjör IA
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(3):144-53; discussion 154. PubMed ID: 16831187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial.
Moncada G; Fernández E; Martín J; Arancibia C; Mjör IA; Gordan VV
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(3):258-64. PubMed ID: 18505215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
Walter R; Boushell LW; Heymann HO; Ritter AV; Sturdevant JR; Wilder AD; Chung Y; Swift EJ
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up.
Endo Hoshino IA; Fraga Briso AL; Bueno Esteves LM; Dos Santos PH; Meira Borghi Frascino S; Fagundes TC
Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Sep; 26(9):5697-5710. PubMed ID: 35556174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Marginal Gap Formation in Approximal "Bulk Fill" Resin Composite Restorations After Artificial Ageing.
Peutzfeldt A; Mühlebach S; Lussi A; Flury S
Oper Dent; 2018; 43(2):180-189. PubMed ID: 29148914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive.
Atalay C; Ozgunaltay G; Yazici AR
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Apr; 24(4):1569-1578. PubMed ID: 31468262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation.
Perdigão J; Kose C; Mena-Serrano AP; De Paula EA; Tay LY; Reis A; Loguercio AD
Oper Dent; 2014; 39(2):113-27. PubMed ID: 23802645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
