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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36281978)

  • 1. Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta.
    Tekçe N; Demirci M; Sancak EI; Güder G; Tuncer S; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2022 Nov; 47(6):620-629. PubMed ID: 36281978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical Performance of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta.
    Tekçe N; Demirci M; Sancak EI; Güder G; Tuncer S; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2022 Oct; ():. PubMed ID: 36279361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta - Anterior Restorations.
    Tekçe N; Demirci M; Tuncer S; Güder G; Sancak EI
    J Adhes Dent; 2022 Mar; 24(1):77-86. PubMed ID: 35322945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 9. The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of Class II composite resin restorations.
    Loomans BA; Roeters FJ; Opdam NJ; Kuijs RH
    J Dent; 2008 Oct; 36(10):828-32. PubMed ID: 18621458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Five-year Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled and a Nanohybrid Composite in Class IV Cavities.
    Demirci M; Tuncer S; Sancakli HS; Tekçe N; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2018; 43(3):261-271. PubMed ID: 29533716
    [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. Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Feb; 132(2):196-203; quiz 224-5. PubMed ID: 11217593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The Effect of Ground and Unground Enamel on the Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Build-up After Orthodontic Treatment: Five Years of Follow-up.
    Demirci M; Tuncer S; Tekçe N; Öztaş E; Baydemir C
    Oper Dent; 2023 Sep; 48(5):E106-E118. PubMed ID: 37503637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up.
    Gönülol N; Kalyoncuoğlu E; Ertaş E; Misilli T
    Clin Oral Investig; 2019 May; 23(5):2323-2330. PubMed ID: 30293184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.