These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3864801)

  • 1. Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a six-year follow-up.
    Varpio M
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1985; 52(6):435-40. PubMed ID: 3864801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a two-year follow-up.
    Leifler E; Varpio M
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1981; 48(6):411-6. PubMed ID: 6946081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Buchalla W; Mönting JS
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 11572292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
    Alves dos Santos MP; Luiz RR; Maia LC
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Mönting JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):259-64. PubMed ID: 11203828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation.
    Andersson-Wenckert I; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2006 Nov; 64(6):334-40. PubMed ID: 17123909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 16956709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.
    Ostlund J; Möller K; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 1496459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
    Casagrande L; Dalpian DM; Ardenghi TM; Zanatta FB; Balbinot CE; García-Godoy F; De Araujo FB
    Am J Dent; 2013 Dec; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months.
    Holan G; Chosack A; Eidelman E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1996; 63(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 8958346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Management of extensive carious lesions in permanent molars of a child with nonmetallic bonded restorations--a case report.
    el-Mowafy O
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2000 Jun; 66(6):302-7. PubMed ID: 10927895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical aspects of restorative treatment in the primary dentition.
    Varpio M
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1993; 96():1-47. PubMed ID: 8310420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
    da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
    J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Sadeghi M; Lynch CD; Shahamat N
    J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical performance of Class II restorations in which resin composite is laminated over resin-modified glass-ionomer.
    Aboush YE; Torabzadeh H
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 11203844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cervical gap formation in class II composite resin restorations.
    Ehrnford L; Dérand T
    Swed Dent J; 1984; 8(1):15-9. PubMed ID: 6372145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.