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

921 related items for PubMed ID: 25270702

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.
    Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA.
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 May; 138(5):621-7. PubMed ID: 17473040
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation.
    Gordan VV, Mjör IA, Vazquez O, Watson RE, Wilson N.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002 May; 14(5):296-302. PubMed ID: 12405585
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
    Rocha Gomes Torres C, Rêgo HM, Perote LC, Santos LF, Kamozaki MB, Gutierrez NC, Di Nicoló R, Borges AB.
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. An eighteen-month clinical evaluation of posterior restorations with fluoride releasing adhesive and composite systems.
    Akimoto N, Ohmori K, Hanabusa M, Momoi Y.
    Dent Mater J; 2011 Jul; 30(3):411-8. PubMed ID: 21597208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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; 2(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 25427330
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 Feb; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices.
    Burke FJ, Crisp RJ, Bell TJ, Healy A, Mark B, McBirnie R, Osborne-Smith KL.
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):293-8. PubMed ID: 12066649
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16. 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]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P, Alaerts M, Keulemans F.
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 47.