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 *

210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9807127)

  • 1. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.
    Mair LH
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Aug; 29(8):483-90. PubMed ID: 9807127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Wear patterns in two amalgams and three posterior composites after 5 years' clinical service.
    Mair LH
    J Dent; 1995 Apr; 23(2):107-12. PubMed ID: 7738266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study.
    Pesun IJ; Olson AK; Hodges JS; Anderson GC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 11005910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Long-term deterioration of composite resin and amalgam restorations.
    Smales RJ
    Oper Dent; 1991; 16(6):202-9. PubMed ID: 1840079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Watson RE; Mjor IA
    Am J Dent; 2005 Feb; 18(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15810481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. [Black or white--Which choice for the molars? Part 2. Which does one choose for the restoration of posterior teeth: amalgam or composite?].
    De Moor R; Delmé K
    Rev Belge Med Dent (1984); 2008; 63(4):135-46. PubMed ID: 19227687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations.
    Johnson GH; Bales DJ; Gordon GE; Powell LV
    Quintessence Int; 1992 Oct; 23(10):705-11. PubMed ID: 1289954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years.
    Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical evaluation of a posterior resin composite: 3-year results.
    Wendt SL; Leinfelder KF
    Am J Dent; 1994 Aug; 7(4):207-11. PubMed ID: 7986437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
    Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.