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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9669456)

  • 1. A 3-year clinical evaluation of two composite resins in class-II cavities.
    Rasmusson CG; Köhler B; Odman P
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1998 Apr; 56(2):70-5. PubMed ID: 9669456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations.
    Köhler B; Rasmusson CG; Odman P
    J Dent; 2000 Feb; 28(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 10666968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in Class I and II restorations: 2-year results.
    Lundin SA; Rasmusson CG
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Oct; 35(9):758-62. PubMed ID: 15471000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results.
    Rasmusson CG; Lundin SA
    Swed Dent J; 1995; 19(5):173-82. PubMed ID: 8614898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices.
    Burke FJ; Crisp RJ; Bell TJ; Healy A; Mark B; McBirnie R; Osborne-Smith KL
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):293-8. PubMed ID: 12066649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of Dyract AP restorative in permanent molars: 2-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Smales RJ; Wei SH
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):403-6. PubMed ID: 12691278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Class II composite resin restorations: a three-year clinical study of six different posterior composites.
    Lundin SA; Andersson B; Koch G; Rasmusson CG
    Swed Dent J; 1990; 14(3):105-14. PubMed ID: 2255989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2008; 118(4):290-5. PubMed ID: 18491670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin.
    Barnes DM; Blank LW; Thompson VP; Holston AM; Gingell JC
    Quintessence Int; 1991 Feb; 22(2):143-51. PubMed ID: 2068249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical performance and wear resistance of two compomers in posterior occlusal restorations of permanent teeth: six-year follow-up.
    Lund RG; Sehn FP; Piva E; Detoni D; Moura FR; Cardoso PE; Demarco FF
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(2):118-23. PubMed ID: 17427819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
    Yip KH; Poon BK; Chu FC; Poon EC; Kong FY; Smales RJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Dec; 134(12):1581-9. PubMed ID: 14719754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.
    Wucher M; Grobler SR; Senekal PJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):274-8. PubMed ID: 12572648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.