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 *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8636474)

  • 1. Two-year results with box-only resin composite restorations.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Borgmeijer PJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1995; 62(6):395-400. PubMed ID: 8636474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A two-year comparison of resin-based composite tunnel and Class II restorations in a randomized controlled trial.
    Kinomoto Y; Inoue Y; Ebisu S
    Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):253-6. PubMed ID: 15478486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
    Ermiş RB
    Quintessence Int; 2002; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination.
    Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach.
    Zanata RL; Navarro MF; Barbosa SH; Lauris JR; Franco EB
    J Public Health Dent; 2003; 63(4):221-6. PubMed ID: 14682645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An in vitro study on the secondary caries-prevention properties of three restorative materials.
    Lai GY; Zhu LK; Li MY; Wang J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):363-8. PubMed ID: 23998624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer.
    Payne JH
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 10204453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up.
    Pollington S; van Noort R
    Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):49-52. PubMed ID: 18435377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An in-vitro investigation of microleakage and gap size of glass ionomer/composite resin "sandwich" restorations in primary teeth.
    Reid JS; Saunders WP; Sharkey SW; Williams CE
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1994; 61(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 7989627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical comparison of Class V resin composite and glass ionomer restorations.
    Powell LV; Gordon GE; Johnson GH
    Am J Dent; 1992 Oct; 5(5):249-52. PubMed ID: 1299249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results.
    Perdigão J; Dutra-Corrêa M; Saraceni SH; Ciaramicoli MT; Kiyan VH
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(6):591-601. PubMed ID: 22770485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Tunnel restorations. A 3 1/2-year follow up study of Class I and II tunnel restorations in permanent and primary teeth.
    Hasselrot L
    Swed Dent J; 1993; 17(5):173-82. PubMed ID: 8291027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
    Folwaczny M; Loher C; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hinkel R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.