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

598 related items for PubMed ID: 20202097

  • 1. 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]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. 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]

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

  • 6. 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]

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

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

  • 9. Efficacy of composites filled with nanoparticles in permanent molars: Six-month results.
    Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA.
    Gen Dent; 2010 May 01; 58(5):e190-5. PubMed ID: 20829151
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

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

  • 12. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
    Alves dos Santos MP, Luiz RR, Maia LC.
    J Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. Clinical comparison of bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: two-year follow-up.
    Yazici AR, Baseren M, Gorucu J.
    Oper Dent; 2010 May 01; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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 May 01; 58(4):338-43. PubMed ID: 20591781
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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]

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of nanofill and nanohybrid composite in Class I restorations: a 12-month randomized trial.
    Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA.
    Gen Dent; 2012 Nov 01; 60(4):e255-62. PubMed ID: 22782061
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A, van Dijken JW, Lindberg M.
    J Dent; 2007 Feb 01; 35(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 16956709
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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]

  • 20. 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]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 30.