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

216 related items for PubMed ID: 20888884

  • 1. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite.
    de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA.
    J Dent; 2011 Jan; 39(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 20888884
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 3. 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 Jan; 58(5):e190-5. PubMed ID: 20829151
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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]

  • 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. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years.
    Krämer N, García-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R.
    Dent Mater; 2011 May 01; 27(5):455-64. PubMed ID: 21397316
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Posterior resin composite restorations with or without resin-modified, glass-ionomer cement lining: a 1-year randomized, clinical trial.
    Banomyong D, Harnirattisai C, Burrow MF.
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 Feb 01; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Three-and-a-half-year clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin in children.
    Memarpour M, Mesbahi M, Shafıei F.
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2010 Feb 01; 77(2):92-8. PubMed ID: 20819404
    [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. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
    Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, Zanatta FB, Balbinot CE, García-Godoy F, De Araujo FB.
    Am J Dent; 2013 Dec 01; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
    [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 Dec 01; 35(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 20672723
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Two-year clinical study on postoperative pulpal complications arising from the absence of a glass-ionomer lining in deep occlusal resin-composite restorations.
    Banomyong D, Messer H.
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2013 Nov 01; 4(4):265-70. PubMed ID: 23355492
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Nanocomposites provide reliability and aesthetics.
    Wu JC.
    Dent Today; 2010 Jul 01; 29(7):128-9. PubMed ID: 20687440
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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]

  • 15. 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]

  • 16. 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]

  • 17. 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]

  • 18. Clinical performance of Class II restorations in which resin composite is laminated over resin-modified glass-ionomer.
    Aboush YE, Torabzadeh H.
    Oper Dent; 2000 Jul 01; 25(5):367-73. PubMed ID: 11203844
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A clinical study of adhesive amalgam in pediatric dental practice.
    Cannon ML, Tylka JA, Sandrik J.
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Apr 01; 20(4):331-4, 336, 338 passim; quiz 344. PubMed ID: 11692340
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1.
    Hilton TJ.
    Am J Dent; 2002 Jun 01; 15(3):198-210. PubMed ID: 12469759
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.