189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38418863)
1. 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials.
Ahmed B; Wafaie RA; Hamama HH; Mahmoud SH
Sci Rep; 2024 Feb; 14(1):4942. PubMed ID: 38418863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.
Koc Vural U; Kerimova L; Kiremitci A
Odontology; 2021 Apr; 109(2):376-384. PubMed ID: 32902766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of cavity lining on the restoration of root surface carious lesions: a split-mouth, 5-year randomized controlled clinical trial.
Koc Vural U; Gokalp S; Kiremitci A
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):979-989. PubMed ID: 31273529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Five-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative systems in small class II restorations.
Wafaie RA; Ibrahim Ali A; El-Negoly SAE; Mahmoud SH
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2023 Apr; 35(3):538-555. PubMed ID: 36564970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
Banomyong D; Harnirattisai C; Burrow MF
J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical Performance of Composite Restorations with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Lining in Root Surface Carious Lesions.
Koc Vural U; Gökalp S; Kiremitci A
Oper Dent; 2016; 41(3):268-75. PubMed ID: 26794189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Margin Integrity and Secondary Caries of Lined or Non-lined Composite and Glass Hybrid Restorations After Selective Excavation In Vitro.
Schwendicke F; Kniess J; Paris S; Blunck U
Oper Dent; 2017; 42(2):155-164. PubMed ID: 27802124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin composite on minimally invasive occlusal restorations performed without rubber-dam isolation: a two-year randomised split-mouth study.
Hatirli H; Yasa B; Çelik EU
Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Sep; 25(9):5493-5503. PubMed ID: 33683465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Microshear Bond Strength of Bioactive Materials to Dentin and Resin Composite.
Ahmed B; Hamama HH; Mahmoud SH
Eur J Dent; 2023 Jul; 17(3):917-923. PubMed ID: 36307111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial.
Celik EU; Tunac AT; Yilmaz F
Clin Oral Investig; 2019 Mar; 23(3):1473-1480. PubMed ID: 30120605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Two-year clinical study on postoperative pulpal complications arising from the absence of a glass-ionomer lining in deep occlusal resin-composite restorations.
Banomyong D; Messer H
J Investig Clin Dent; 2013 Nov; 4(4):265-70. PubMed ID: 23355492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity.
van Dijken JWV; Pallesen U; Benetti A
Dent Mater; 2019 Feb; 35(2):335-343. PubMed ID: 30527586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Human pulp response to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements applied in very deep cavities.
Ribeiro APD; Sacono NT; Soares DG; Bordini EAF; de Souza Costa CA; Hebling J
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 May; 24(5):1739-1748. PubMed ID: 31372829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of the efficacy of calcium silicate vs. glass ionomer cement indirect pulp capping and restoration assessment criteria: a randomised controlled clinical trial-2-year results.
Hashem D; Mannocci F; Patel S; Manoharan A; Watson TF; Banerjee A
Clin Oral Investig; 2019 Apr; 23(4):1931-1939. PubMed ID: 30232625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Comparison of a resin-based sealant with a nano-filled flowable resin composite on sealing performance of marginal defects in resin composites restorations: a 36-months clinical evaluation.
Estay J; Pardo-Díaz C; Reinoso E; Perez-Iñigo J; Martín J; Jorquera G; Kuga M; Fernández E
Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Oct; 26(10):6087-6095. PubMed ID: 35608683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cuspal deflection in premolar teeth restored using current composite resins with and without resin-modified glass ionomer liner.
Karaman E; Ozgunaltay G
Oper Dent; 2013; 38(3):282-9. PubMed ID: 23092141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
