149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37533048)
41. Impression matrix technique for cusp replacement using direct composite resin.
Denehy G; Cobb D
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2004; 16(4):227-33; discussion 234. PubMed ID: 15672615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. In vitro study of enamel and dentin marginal integrity of composite and compomer restorations placed in primary teeth after diamond or Er:YAG laser cavity preparation.
Stiesch-Scholz M; Hannig M
J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(3):213-22. PubMed ID: 11317395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Fracture resistance of class II preformed ceramic insert and direct composite resin restorations.
Görücü J
J Dent; 2003 Jan; 31(1):83-8. PubMed ID: 12615024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Duplicating the form and function of posterior teeth with Class II resin-based composite.
Christensen JJ
Gen Dent; 2012; 60(2):104-8; quiz 109-10. PubMed ID: 22414503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Distribution of adhesive layer in class II composite resin restorations before/after interproximal matrix application.
Muduroglu R; Ionescu AC; Del Fabbro M; Scolavino S; Brambilla E
J Dent; 2020 Dec; 103():103494. PubMed ID: 33031887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Can pulpal floor debonding be detected from occlusal surface displacement in composite restorations?
Novaes JB; Talma E; Las Casas EB; Aregawi W; Kolstad LW; Mantell S; Wang Y; Fok A
Dent Mater; 2018 Jan; 34(1):161-169. PubMed ID: 29199007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. Comparative study of composite resin placement: centripetal buildup versus incremental technique.
Szep S; Frank H; Kenzel B; Gerhardt T; Heidemann D
Pract Proced Aesthet Dent; 2001 Apr; 13(3):243-50; quiz 252. PubMed ID: 11360771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. The proximal precinct in direct posterior composite restorations: interproximal integrity.
Liebenberg WH
Pract Proced Aesthet Dent; 2002 Sep; 14(7):587-94; quiz 596. PubMed ID: 12373946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Evaluation of custom occlusal matrix technique for posterior light-cured composites.
Hamilton JC; Krestik KE; Dennison JB
Oper Dent; 1998; 23(6):303-7. PubMed ID: 9855853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Impact of access cavity cleaning on the seal of postendodontic composite restorations in vitro.
Scholz KJ; Sim W; Bopp S; Hiller KA; Galler KM; Buchalla W; Widbiller M
Int Endod J; 2022 Sep; 55(9):950-963. PubMed ID: 35768890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. In vitro Evaluation and Comparison of Microleakage of Two Restorative Composite Resins in Class II Situations using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy.
Nanda BD; Sharma P; Moudgil M; Sharma V; Gupta AK; Gupta D
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Sep; 19(9):1100-1104. PubMed ID: 30287711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Quality of approximal surfaces of posterior restorations in primary molars.
Cerdán F; Ceballos L; Fuentes MV
J Oral Sci; 2021 Oct; 63(4):347-351. PubMed ID: 34511588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Evaluation of the microleakage at the proximal walls of Class II cavities restored using resin composite and precured composite inserts.
Wahab FK; Shaini FJ
Quintessence Int; 2003 Sep; 34(8):600-6. PubMed ID: 14620211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.
Borgia E; Baron R; Borgia JL
J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e195-e203. PubMed ID: 28513897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Operators' Ease and Satisfaction in Restoring Class II Cavities With Sectional Matrix Versus Circumferential Matrix System at Qassim University Dental Clinics.
Almushayti M; Arjumand B
Cureus; 2022 Jan; 14(1):e20957. PubMed ID: 35004091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Performance of bulk-fill versus conventional nanocomposite resin restorations supporting the occlusal rests of removable partial dentures: An in vitro investigation.
Mesallum EE; Abd El Aziz PM; Swelem AA
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jun; 129(6):907.e1-907.e7. PubMed ID: 37100650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Effect of centripetal and incremental methods in Class II composite resin restorations on gingival microleakage.
Ghavamnasiri M; Moosavi H; Tahvildarnejad N
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2007 Feb; 8(2):113-20. PubMed ID: 17277834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.
van Dijken JW
J Dent; 2000 Jul; 28(5):299-306. PubMed ID: 10785294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Handling protocol of posterior composites--part 3: matrix systems.
Strydom C
SADJ; 2006 Feb; 61(1):18, 20-1. PubMed ID: 16562614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
