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

1535 related items for PubMed ID: 20461321

  • 1. 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]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. 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 Jul 01; 14(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11842911
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5. 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]

  • 6. 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]

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT, Pfeiffer P.
    Oper Dent; 2009 May 01; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [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. 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 Jun 01; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Franco EB, Benetti AR, Ishikiriama SK, Santiago SL, Lauris JR, Jorge MF, Navarro MF.
    Oper Dent; 2006 Jun 01; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study.
    Folwaczny M, Loher C, Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Hinkel R.
    Oper Dent; 2000 Jun 01; 25(4):251-8. PubMed ID: 11203827
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. 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]

  • 15. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep 01; 84(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11005901
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 Sep 01; 37(2):117-29. PubMed ID: 22313275
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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 01; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
    [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 study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.
    Huth KC, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R, Manhart J.
    J Dent; 2011 Jul 01; 39(7):478-88. PubMed ID: 21554920
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. 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]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 77.