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.
97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9578222)
1. Can chemical softening agents minimize cavity enlargement during removal of failed anterior resin composite restorations? Cruickshank EJ; Chadwick RG J Oral Rehabil; 1998 Mar; 25(3):167-73. PubMed ID: 9578222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results. Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of laminate technique using glass ionomer and resin composite for restoration of root filled teeth. Taha NA; Palamara JE; Messer HH J Dent; 2012 Aug; 40(8):617-23. PubMed ID: 22521705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Pallesen U; van Dijken JW Dent Mater; 2015 Oct; 31(10):1232-44. PubMed ID: 26321155 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations. Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Microleakage of composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations in retentive and nonretentive cervical cavity preparations. Kaplan I; Mincer HH; Harris EF; Cloyd JS J Prosthet Dent; 1992 Oct; 68(4):616-23. PubMed ID: 1403938 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations. Toledano M; Osorio E; Osorio R; García-Godoy F J Prosthet Dent; 1999 May; 81(5):610-5. PubMed ID: 10220667 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement on primary teeth restorations. Tolidis K; Boutsiouki C; Gerasimou P Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2016 Sep; 17(3):227-233. PubMed ID: 27759413 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Fracture resistance of premolar teeth restored with silorane-based or dimethacrylate-based composite resins. Akbarian G; Ameri H; Chasteen JE; Ghavamnasiri M J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):200-7. PubMed ID: 24103086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Khoroushi M; Karvandi TM; Kamali B; Mazaheri H Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(3):378-83. PubMed ID: 23059577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Microleakage of light-cured resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer dentin bonding agents applied with co-cure vs pre-cure technique. Tulunoglu O; Uçtaşh M; Alaçam A; Omürlü H Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):292-8. PubMed ID: 11203833 [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. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations. Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Spatially resolved assessments of composite shrinkage in MOD restorations using a digital-image-correlation technique. Chuang SF; Chang CH; Chen TY Dent Mater; 2011 Feb; 27(2):134-43. PubMed ID: 20951420 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]