162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38389748)
1. Proximal contact tightness of direct Class II composite resin restorations with various matrix systems: A systematic review.
Anantula K; Vankayala B; Yadav SS
J Conserv Dent Endod; 2024 Jan; 27(1):11-16. PubMed ID: 38389748
[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. Evaluation of Matrix Systems on the Proximal Contact of Class II Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review.
Alshardan R; Rozi A; AlSenan D; Rozi A; AlJohani B; Almusallam J; AlAteeq N
Cureus; 2023 Dec; 15(12):e50835. PubMed ID: 38259361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
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. 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]
12. 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]
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. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.
Schenkel AB; Veitz-Keenan A
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2019 Mar; 3(3):CD010526. PubMed ID: 30834516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.
Schenkel AB; Peltz I; Veitz-Keenan A
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Oct; 10(10):CD010526. PubMed ID: 27780315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
