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

389 related items for PubMed ID: 11203987

  • 61. Comparison of conventional versus colored compomers for class II restorations in primary molars: a 12-month clinical study.
    Ertugrul F, Cogulu D, Ozdemir Y, Ersin N.
    Med Princ Pract; 2010; 19(2):148-52. PubMed ID: 20134179
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 62. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Sadeghi M, Lynch CD, Shahamat N.
    J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 63. One-year clinical evaluation of compomer restorations placed in general practice.
    Crisp RJ, Burke FJ.
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Mar; 31(3):181-6. PubMed ID: 11203923
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 64. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
    Dresch W, Volpato S, Gomes JC, Ribeiro NR, Reis A, Loguercio AD.
    Oper Dent; 2006 Mar; 31(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 16924980
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 65. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Swift EJ, Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD.
    Am J Dent; 2008 Jun; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 66. One-year clinical evaluation of composite restorations in posterior teeth: effect of adhesive systems.
    Sundfeld RH, Scatolin RS, Oliveira FG, Machado LS, Alexandre RS, Sundefeld ML.
    Oper Dent; 2012 Jun; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 67. 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 Jun; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 68. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 69. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 70. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth.
    Can Say E, Kayahan B, Ozel E, Gokce K, Soyman M, Bayirli G.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 May 01; 7(2):17-25. PubMed ID: 16685291
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 71. Two-year clinical performance of self-etching adhesive systems in composite restorations of anterior teeth.
    Barcellos DC, Batista GR, Silva MA, Pleffken PR, Rangel PM, Fernandes VV, Di Nicoló R, Torres CR.
    Oper Dent; 2013 May 01; 38(3):258-66. PubMed ID: 23110580
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 72. Noncarious class V lesions restored with a polyacid modified resin composite and a nanocomposite: a two-year clinical trial.
    Türkün LS, Celik EU.
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct 01; 10(5):399-405. PubMed ID: 19058687
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 73. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
    Krämer N, García-Godoy F, Frankenberger R.
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr 01; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 74. Marginal integrity of large compomer Class II restorations with cervical margins in dentine.
    Dietrich T, Kraemer M, Lösche GM, Roulet J.
    J Dent; 2000 Aug 01; 28(6):399-405. PubMed ID: 10856804
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 75. Retention and marginal adaptation of a compomer placed in non-stress-bearing areas used with the total-etch technique: a 3-year retrospective study.
    Prati C, Chersoni S, Cretti L, Montanari G.
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Dec 01; 2(4):168-73. PubMed ID: 10388389
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 76. Dyract compomer: comparison of total etch vs. no etch technique.
    Kugel G, Perry RD, Hoang E, Hoang T, Ferrari M.
    Gen Dent; 1998 Dec 01; 46(6):604-6. PubMed ID: 10218026
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 77. 2-year clinical evaluation of Class I posterior composites.
    Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA.
    Am J Dent; 1996 Aug 01; 9(4):150-2. PubMed ID: 9002789
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 78. Direct posterior resin composite restorations: new techniques and clinical possibilities. Case reports.
    Lopes GC, Ferreira Rde S, Baratieri LN, Vieira LC, Monteiro JS.
    Quintessence Int; 2002 May 01; 33(5):337-46. PubMed ID: 12014162
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 79. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings.
    Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Lima FG, Donassollo TA, André Dde A, Leida FL.
    J Dent; 2007 Mar 01; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 80. Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars.
    Gross LC, Griffen AL, Casamassimo PS.
    Pediatr Dent; 2001 Mar 01; 23(1):24-7. PubMed ID: 11242726
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 20.