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

165 related items for PubMed ID: 15709496

  • 1. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report.
    de Souza FB, Guimarães RP, Silva CH.
    Quintessence Int; 2005 Jan; 36(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 15709496
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May 01; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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 01; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Gurgan S.
    Oper Dent; 2009 Jul 01; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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]

  • 7. 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 01; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.
    Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP, Busato AL.
    J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Feb 01; 33(2):144-51. PubMed ID: 16457675
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW.
    J Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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 Jun 01; 31(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 16924980
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: two-year results.
    Arhun N, Celik C, Yamanel K.
    Oper Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 35(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 20672723
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years.
    Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ozata F.
    Quintessence Int; 2005 May 01; 36(5):365-72. PubMed ID: 15892534
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 01; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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 01; 18(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15810481
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of Dyract AP restorative in permanent molars: 2-year results.
    Luo Y, Lo EC, Fang DT, Smales RJ, Wei SH.
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec 01; 15(6):403-6. PubMed ID: 12691278
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.
    Ermiş RB.
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Dec 01; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. One-year clinical evaluation of SureFil packable composite.
    Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder K.
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Jun 01; 20(6):544-50, 552-3. PubMed ID: 10650367
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of two packable resin-based composite restorations: a three-year report.
    Torres CR, Borges AB, Goncalves SE, Pucci CR, de Araujo MA, Barcellos DC.
    Gen Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 58(4):338-43. PubMed ID: 20591781
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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 01; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Fracture resistance of class II packable composite restorations with and without flowable liners.
    Ozgünaltay G, Görücü J.
    J Oral Rehabil; 2005 Feb 01; 32(2):111-5. PubMed ID: 15641976
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.