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

532 related items for PubMed ID: 18473024

  • 1. 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]

  • 2. 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]

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

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Luo Y, Lo EC, Fang DT, Wei SH.
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct 01; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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]

  • 6. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report.
    de Souza FB, Guimarães RP, Silva CH.
    Quintessence Int; 2005 Jan 01; 36(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 15709496
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. 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]

  • 9. 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 Nov 01; 37(6):E1-8. PubMed ID: 22621163
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 11. 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]

  • 12. 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]

  • 13. 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 01; 17(6):451-6. PubMed ID: 15724760
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer.
    Monaco C, Baldissara P, dall'Orologio GD, Scotti R.
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001 Dec 01; 14(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11842911
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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]

  • 16. One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Koubi S, Raskin A, Bukiet F, Pignoly C, Toca E, Tassery H.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Nov 01; 7(5):42-53. PubMed ID: 17091139
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
    Krejci I, Besek M, Lutz F.
    Am J Dent; 1994 Feb 01; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 9115675
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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 01; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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]

  • 20. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS, Aktener BO, Ateş M.
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun 01; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 27.