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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8018063)

  • 1. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations.
    Bryant RW; Hodge KL
    Aust Dent J; 1994 Apr; 39(2):77-81. PubMed ID: 8018063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Occlusal margin defects around different types of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Bryant RW; Marzbani N; Hodge KV
    Oper Dent; 1992; 17(6):215-21. PubMed ID: 1303514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings.
    Collins CJ; Bryant RW; Hodge KL
    J Dent; 1998 May; 26(4):311-7. PubMed ID: 9611936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material, Heliomolar R.O.: 3-year report.
    Knibbs PJ; Smart ER
    J Oral Rehabil; 1992 May; 19(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 1500966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
    Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.
    Bernardo M; Luis H; Martin MD; Leroux BG; Rue T; Leitão J; DeRouen TA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):775-83. PubMed ID: 17545266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A clinical evaluation of Class II composites placed using a decoupling technique.
    Wilson NH; Cowan AJ; Unterbrink G; Wilson MA; Crisp RJ
    J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(4):319-29. PubMed ID: 11317379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cross-sectional radiographic survey of amalgam and resin-based composite posterior restorations.
    Levin L; Coval M; Geiger SB
    Quintessence Int; 2007 Jun; 38(6):511-4. PubMed ID: 17625635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.
    Shi L; Wang X; Zhao Q; Zhang Y; Zhang L; Ren Y; Chen Z
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: effect of adhesive systems.
    Sundfeld RH; Scatolin RS; Oliveira FG; Machado LS; Alexandre RS; Sundefeld ML
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The performance of bonded vs. pin-retained complex amalgam restorations: a five-year clinical evaluation.
    Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Berry TG; Robbins JW; Osborne JW; Haveman CW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Jul; 132(7):923-31. PubMed ID: 11480646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
    Gaengler P; Hoyer I; Montag R
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of a composite resin system with a dentin bonding agent for restoration of permanent posterior teeth: a 3-year study.
    Roberts MW; Folio J; Moffa JP; Guckes AD
    J Prosthet Dent; 1992 Mar; 67(3):301-6. PubMed ID: 1507089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.
    Soncini JA; Maserejian NN; Trachtenberg F; Tavares M; Hayes C
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):763-72. PubMed ID: 17545265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.