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)

  • 21. Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Feb; 132(2):196-203; quiz 224-5. PubMed ID: 11217593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
    Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.
    Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Watson RE; Garvan C; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 May; 138(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 17473040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years.
    Lundin SA; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1999; 23(5-6):165-71. PubMed ID: 10901600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.
    Wassell RW; Walls AW; McCabe JF
    J Dent; 2000 Aug; 28(6):375-82. PubMed ID: 10856800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. One-year clinical evaluation of SureFil packable composite.
    Perry R; Kugel G; Leinfelder K
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Jun; 20(6):544-50, 552-3. PubMed ID: 10650367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Two-year clinical evaluation of Dyract in small Class I cavities.
    Demirci M; Uçok M
    Am J Dent; 2002 Oct; 15(5):312-6. PubMed ID: 12537341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations.
    Wilder AD; May KN; Bayne SC; Taylor DF; Leinfelder KF
    J Esthet Dent; 1999; 11(3):135-42. PubMed ID: 10825870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Comparative clinical evaluation of different treatment approaches using a microfilled resin composite and a compomer in Class III cavities: two-year results.
    Demirci M; Yildiz E; Uysal O
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 18335727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Cervical compomer restorations: the role of cavity etching in a 48-month clinical evaluation.
    Di Lenarda R; Cadenaro M; De Stefano Dorigo E
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):382-7. PubMed ID: 11203846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2015 Dec; 43(12):1547-58. PubMed ID: 26363442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years.
    Poon EC; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Nov; 136(11):1533-40. PubMed ID: 16329416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
    Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 12744410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.