238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36309470)
1. Evaluation of microleakage and push-out bond strength of various composite resins for sealing the screw-access channel in implant-supported restorations.
Shim JS; Li CY; Won JE; Ryu JJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):764.e1-764.e7. PubMed ID: 36309470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Investigating the impact of flowable composite liner on the fracture strength and microleakage of large composite resin restorations of primary anterior teeth.
Kalakijuybari FZ; Pasdar N; Ahmadi G; Seyedmajidi A
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent; 2023 Aug; 24(4):473-479. PubMed ID: 37341920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Microleakage and shear punch bond strength in class II primary molars cavities restored with low shrink silorane based versus methacrylate based composite using three different techniques.
Fahmy AE; Farrag NM
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2010; 35(2):173-81. PubMed ID: 21417120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Flowable Composite Resin Using Etch and Rinse, Self-Etch Adhesive Systems, and Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite Resin in Class V Cavities: Confocal Laser Microscopic Study.
Sengar EV; Mulay S; Beri L; Gupta A; Almohareb T; Binalrimal S; Robaian A; Bahammam MA; Bahammam HA; Bahammam SA; Zidane B; Albar NH; Bhandi S; Shrivastava D; Srivastava KC; Patil S
Materials (Basel); 2022 Jul; 15(14):. PubMed ID: 35888429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of flowable materials on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cemento-enamel junction.
Sadeghi M; Lynch CD
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):306-11. PubMed ID: 19544820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Adhesiveness of bulk-fill composite resin in permanent molars submitted to Streptococcus mutans biofilm.
Fidalgo TKDS; Americano G; Medina D; Athayde G; Letieri ADS; Maia LC
Braz Oral Res; 2019; 33():e111. PubMed ID: 31800863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems.
Kasraei S; Azarsina M; Majidi S
Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 21702678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Influence of flowable composite and restorative technique on microleakage of class II restorations.
Hernandes NM; Catelan A; Soares GP; Ambrosano GM; Lima DA; Marchi GM; Martins LR; Aguiar FH
J Investig Clin Dent; 2014 Nov; 5(4):283-8. PubMed ID: 23946230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Modification of the restoration protocol for resin-based composite (RBC) restoratives (conventional and bulk fill) on cuspal movement and microleakage score in molar teeth.
Politi I; McHugh LEJ; Al-Fodeh RS; Fleming GJP
Dent Mater; 2018 Sep; 34(9):1271-1277. PubMed ID: 29857989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Bulk fill restoratives: to cap or not to cap--that is the question?
Tomaszewska IM; Kearns JO; Ilie N; Fleming GJ
J Dent; 2015 Mar; 43(3):309-16. PubMed ID: 25625673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An
Meshram P; Meshram V; Palve D; Patil S; Gade V; Raut A
Indian J Dent Res; 2019; 30(3):403-407. PubMed ID: 31397416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites.
Tredwin CJ; Stokes A; Moles DR
Oper Dent; 2005; 30(1):32-8. PubMed ID: 15765955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Impact of Resin Composite Viscosity and Fill-technique on Internal Gap in Class I Restorations: An OCT Evaluation.
Kantovitz KR; Cabral LL; Carlos NR; de Freitas AZ; Peruzzo DC; Franca F; do Amaral F; Basting RT; Puppin-Rontani RM
Oper Dent; 2021 Sep; 46(5):537-546. PubMed ID: 34929042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement.
Xie H; Zhang F; Wu Y; Chen C; Liu W
Aust Dent J; 2008 Dec; 53(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 19133948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of microleakage in cervical margins of various posterior restorative systems.
Bedran de Castro AK; Pimenta LA; Amaral CM; Ambrosano GM
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002; 14(2):107-14. PubMed ID: 12008798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of flowable materials on microleakage of nanofilled and hybrid Class II composite restorations with LED and QTH LCUs.
Sadeghi M
Indian J Dent Res; 2009; 20(2):159-63. PubMed ID: 19553715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining.
Guéders AM; Charpentier JF; Albert AI; Geerts SO
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):450-5. PubMed ID: 16924985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study.
Alkhudhairy FI; Ahmad ZH
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Dec; 17(12):997-1002. PubMed ID: 27965486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
