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

438 related items for PubMed ID: 20672723

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

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

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. 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]

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

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. 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]

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results.
    Karaman E, Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B.
    J Adhes Dent; 2012 Aug 01; 14(5):485-92. PubMed ID: 22724113
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

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

  • 12. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
    Popoff DA, Santa Rosa TT, Ferreira RC, Magalhães CS, Moreira AN, Mjör IA.
    Oper Dent; 2012 May 01; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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]

  • 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 Jun 01; 33(7):542-8. PubMed ID: 12165991
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions.
    Brackett MG, Dib A, Franco G, Estrada BE, Brackett WW.
    Oper Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 35(3):273-8. PubMed ID: 20533626
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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 Jun 01; 60(4):e255-62. PubMed ID: 22782061
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Three-year prospective clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a nanofiller hybrid resin composite in Class V lesions.
    Preussker S, Pöschmann M, Kensche A, Natusch I, Koch R, Klimm W, Hannig C.
    Am J Dent; 2014 Apr 01; 27(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 25000664
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: a 3-year study.
    Çelik Ç, Arhun N, Yamanel K.
    Med Princ Pract; 2014 Apr 01; 23(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 25115230
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 22.