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.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Journal Abstract Search
111 related items for PubMed ID: 10666969
1. Three-year clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite in minimally invasive occlusal cavities. Cehreli ZC, Altay N. J Dent; 2000 Feb; 28(2):117-22. PubMed ID: 10666969 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in class III cavities: three-year results. Demirci M, Ersev H, Uçok M. Oper Dent; 2002 Feb; 27(3):223-30. PubMed ID: 12022451 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer). Tyas MJ. Oper Dent; 1998 Feb; 23(2):77-80. PubMed ID: 9573792 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Caries Res; 1999 Feb; 33(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 10460963 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: a two-year follow-up study. Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia K. Pediatr Dent; 1999 Feb; 21(4):231-4. PubMed ID: 10436476 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Ketac Molar Versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results. Marks LA, van Amerongen WE, Borgmeijer PJ, Groen HJ, Martens LC. ASDC J Dent Child; 2000 Feb; 67(1):37-41, 8-9. PubMed ID: 10736656 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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 Feb; 32(2):118-23. PubMed ID: 17427819 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in Class III cavities: 5-year results. Demirci M, Ersev H, Sancakli HS, Topçubaşi M. Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):293-6. PubMed ID: 17073207 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results. Folwaczny M, Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):153-6. PubMed ID: 11572293 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]