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

336 related items for PubMed ID: 12066649

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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 Oct; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Two-year evaluation of restorations of a packable composite placed in UK general dental practices.
    Burke FJ, Crisp RJ, Balkenhol M, Bell TJ, Lamb JJ, McDermott K, Siddons C, Weller B.
    Br Dent J; 2005 Sep 10; 199(5):293-6; discussion 283. PubMed ID: 16155547
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. One-year clinical evaluation of compomer restorations placed in general practice.
    Crisp RJ, Burke FJ.
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Mar 10; 31(3):181-6. PubMed ID: 11203923
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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 10; 138(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 17473040
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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 10; 2(4):168-73. PubMed ID: 10388389
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report.
    Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R.
    J Adhes Dent; 2001 Dec 10; 3(2):185-94. PubMed ID: 11570687
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 10; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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 01; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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 01; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 01; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P, Alaerts M, Keulemans F.
    J Dent; 2007 Feb 01; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Three-year clinical evaluation of cuspal coverage with combined composite-amalgam in endodontically-treated maxillary premolars.
    Shafiei F, Memarpour M, Doozandeh M.
    Oper Dent; 2010 Feb 01; 35(6):599-604. PubMed ID: 21179997
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation.
    Gordan VV, Mjör IA, Vazquez O, Watson RE, Wilson N.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002 Feb 01; 14(5):296-302. PubMed ID: 12405585
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin.
    Walter R, Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD, Chung Y, Swift EJ.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014 Feb 01; 26(3):179-90. PubMed ID: 24344912
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 17.