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

386 related items for PubMed ID: 16963171

  • 1. 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; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results.
    Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F.
    J Dent; 2009 Mar; 37(3):198-203. PubMed ID: 19131153
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
    Krämer N, Reinelt C, García-Godoy F, Taschner M, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R.
    Am J Dent; 2009 Aug; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 8. Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive.
    van Dijken JW, Pallesen U.
    J Dent; 2011 Jan; 39(1):16-25. PubMed ID: 20933047
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
    Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömeç Y, Koray F.
    J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Baracco B, Perdigão J, Cabrera E, Giráldez I, Ceballos L.
    Oper Dent; 2012 Nov; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 13. The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities.
    Yazici AR, Ozgünaltay G, Dayangaç B.
    Oper Dent; 2003 Nov; 28(6):773-8. PubMed ID: 14653293
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years.
    Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R.
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jun; 25(6):750-9. PubMed ID: 19237189
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials.
    Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Droz D.
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2008 Jun; 75(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 18647507
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Marginal adaptation of ormocer-, silorane-, and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems bonded to dentin cavities after water storage.
    Mahmoud SH, Al-Wakeel Eel S.
    Quintessence Int; 2011 Jun; 42(10):e131-9. PubMed ID: 22026005
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. One-year clinical evaluation of an ethanol-based and a solvent-free dentin adhesive.
    Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH, Mancl L.
    Am J Dent; 2004 Dec; 17(6):451-6. PubMed ID: 15724760
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years.
    Krämer N, García-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Frankenberger R.
    Am J Dent; 2006 Feb; 19(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 16555660
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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