149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37533048)
1. Impact of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness and surface geometry in class II direct composite restoration in-vitro.
Tolba ZO; Oraby E; Abd El Aziz PM
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Aug; 23(1):535. PubMed ID: 37533048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Influence of composite resin consistency and placement technique on proximal contact tightness of Class II restorations.
Loomans BA; Opdam NJ; Roeters JF; Bronkhorst EM; Plasschaert AJ
J Adhes Dent; 2006 Oct; 8(5):305-10. PubMed ID: 17080878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Morphological analysis of proximal contacts in class II direct restorations with 3D image reconstruction.
Chuang SF; Su KC; Wang CH; Chang CH
J Dent; 2011 Jun; 39(6):448-56. PubMed ID: 21504778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in Class II resin composite restorations.
Kampouropoulos D; Paximada C; Loukidis M; Kakaboura A
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(4):454-62. PubMed ID: 20672731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.
Abbassy KM; Elmahy WA; Holiel AA
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Oct; 23(1):729. PubMed ID: 37805456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of proximal contacts of Class II resin composite restorations in vitro.
Loomans BA; Opdam NJ; Roeters FJ; Bronkhorst EM; Burgersdijk RC
Oper Dent; 2006; 31(6):688-93. PubMed ID: 17153978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Morphological assessment of the surface profile, mesiodistal diameter, and contact tightness of Class II composite restorations using three matrix systems: An
Kumari S; Raghu R; Shetty A; Rajasekhara S; Padmini SD
J Conserv Dent; 2023; 26(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 36908728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of Class II resin composite restorations.
Saber MH; Loomans BA; El Zohairy A; Dörfer CE; El-Badrawy W
Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 20166409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts?
Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Asscherickx K; Simon S; Abe Y; Lambrechts P; Vanherle G
Dent Mater; 2001 Nov; 17(6):533-41. PubMed ID: 11567692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison Between Two Types Of Matrix Systems For Contact Tightness In Class-Ii Composite Restorations.
Asif M; Khattak I; Qureshi A; Zain M; Aslam N; Khan MI
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad; 2023; 35(2):253-258. PubMed ID: 37422816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of two different matrix band systems in restoring two surface cavities in posterior teeth done by senior undergraduate students at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
; Ahmad MZ; Gaikwad RN; Arjumand B
Indian J Dent Res; 2018; 29(4):459-464. PubMed ID: 30127197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Restoration techniques and marginal overhang in Class II composite resin restorations.
Loomans BA; Opdam NJ; Roeters FJ; Bronkhorst EM; Huysmans MC
J Dent; 2009 Sep; 37(9):712-7. PubMed ID: 19524348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Creating tight proximal contacts for MOD resin composite restorations.
Saber MH; El-Badrawy W; Loomans BA; Ahmed DR; Dörfer CE; El Zohairy A
Oper Dent; 2011; 36(3):304-10. PubMed ID: 21740239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. [A clinical study of Palodent posterior teeth matrix system].
Yong W; Zhang RQ
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Feb; 27(1):44-8. PubMed ID: 19323394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effective Protocol for Daily High-quality Direct Posterior Composite Restorations. The Interdental Anatomy of the Class-2 Composite Restoration.
Peumans M; Venuti P; Politano G; Van Meerbeek B
J Adhes Dent; 2021; 23(1):21-34. PubMed ID: 33512113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Influence of volumetric shrinkage and curing light intensity on proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations: in vitro study.
El-Shamy H; Saber MH; Dörfer CE; El-Badrawy W; Loomans BA
Oper Dent; 2012; 37(2):205-10. PubMed ID: 22313267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of saddle contoured metal matrix and pre-contoured self-adhesive matrix in composite resin class II restorations; an in vivo study.
Sarwar N; Khokhar SA
J Pak Med Assoc; 2024 Feb; 74(2):209-215. PubMed ID: 38419215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo.
Wirsching E; Loomans BA; Klaiber B; Dörfer CE
J Dent; 2011 May; 39(5):386-90. PubMed ID: 21414384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effect of various placement techniques on the microhardness of Class II (slot) resin composite restorations.
Moosavi H; Abedini S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Sep; 10(5):E009-16. PubMed ID: 19838605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
