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 *

94 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9180420)

  • 1. Clinical performance of preventive resin restorations placed in a hospital environment.
    King NM; Yung LK; Holmgren CJ
    Quintessence Int; 1996 Sep; 27(9):627-32. PubMed ID: 9180420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A retrospective cohort evaluation of preventive resin restorations.
    Roth AG; Conry JP
    J Can Dent Assoc; 1992 Mar; 58(3):223-6. PubMed ID: 1555126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and two polyacid-modified resin composites in cervical lesions restorations: 1-year follow-up.
    Chinelatti MA; Ramos RP; Chimello DT; Palma-Dibb RG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 31(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 15025658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months.
    Gao W; Peng D; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jan; 34(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 12674356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 1-year clinical evaluation of Compoglass and Fuji II LC in cervical erosion/abfraction lesions.
    Brackett WW; Browning WD; Ross JA; Gregory PN; Owens BM
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):119-22. PubMed ID: 10649933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Two-year performance of glass-ceramic insert-resin composite restorations: clinical and scanning electron microscopic evaluation.
    Kiremitçi A; Bolay S; Gürgan S
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Jul; 29(7):417-21. PubMed ID: 9759057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results.
    Pascon FM; Kantovitz KR; Caldo-Teixeira AS; Borges AF; Silva TN; Puppin-Rontani RM; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Dent; 2006 Jul; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Wei SH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. A clinical study of the "open sandwich" technique in pediatric dental practice.
    Cannon ML
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2003; 70(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 12762613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years.
    Türkün LS; Türkün M; Ozata F
    Quintessence Int; 2005 May; 36(5):365-72. PubMed ID: 15892534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study.
    Cloyd S; Gilpatrick RO; Moore D
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1997 Oct; 77(4):36-40. PubMed ID: 9520761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R; Santiago SL; Mendonça JS; Passos VF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years.
    Ernst CP; Buhtz C; Rissing C; Willershausen B
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2002 Aug; 23(8):711-4, 716-7, 720 passim; quiz 726. PubMed ID: 12244738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner.
    Ernst CP; Canbek K; Aksogan K; Willershausen B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Sep; 7(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 12898294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients.
    McComb D; Erickson RL; Maxymiw WG; Wood RE
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(5):430-7. PubMed ID: 12216559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.