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

477 related items for PubMed ID: 20945740

  • 1. 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; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser radiation.
    Shahabi S, Ebrahimpour L, Walsh LJ.
    Aust Dent J; 2008 Jun; 53(2):172-5. PubMed ID: 18494974
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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]

  • 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. 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]

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. Cervical margin integrity of Class II resin composite restorations in laser- and bur-prepared cavities using three different adhesive systems.
    Oskoee PA, Kimyai S, Ebrahimi Chaharom ME, Rikhtegaran S, Pournaghi-Azar F.
    Oper Dent; 2012 Jul 01; 37(3):316-23. PubMed ID: 22313277
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Cavity preparation devices: effect on microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations.
    Setien VJ, Cobb DS, Denehy GE, Vargas MA.
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun 01; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 11572294
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

  • 11. Microleakage study of different adhesive systems in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser and bur preparation.
    Ergucu Z, Celik EU, Turkun M.
    Gen Dent; 2007 Nov 01; 55(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 17333962
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 Nov 01; 58(5):e190-5. PubMed ID: 20829151
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. 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]

  • 15. 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]

  • 16. 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]

  • 17. 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]

  • 18. 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]

  • 19. SEM evaluation of the hybrid layer after cavity preparation with Er:YAG laser.
    de Barceleiro MO, Dias KR, Sales HX, Silva BC, Barceleiro CG.
    Oper Dent; 2008 Nov 01; 33(3):294-304. PubMed ID: 18505220
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 24.