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

180 related items for PubMed ID: 26201227

  • 1. Class I restoration margin quality in direct resin composites: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.
    Femiano F, Femiano L, Femiano R, Lanza A, Lanza M, Rullo R, Perillo L.
    Am J Dent; 2015 Jun; 28(3):157-60. PubMed ID: 26201227
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
    Stavridakis MM, Kakaboura AI, Ardu S, Krejci I.
    Oper Dent; 2007 Dec; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Selective enamel etching: effect on marginal adaptation of self-etch LED-cured bond systems in aged Class I composite restorations.
    Souza-Junior EJ, Prieto LT, Araújo CT, Paulillo LA.
    Oper Dent; 2012 Dec; 37(2):195-204. PubMed ID: 22313271
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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; 27(5):455-64. PubMed ID: 21397316
    [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 May; 35(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 20166406
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Class II composite restorations: importance of cervical enamel in vitro.
    Laegreid T, Gjerdet NR, Vult von Steyern P, Johansson AK.
    Oper Dent; 2011 May; 36(2):187-95. PubMed ID: 21777100
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Marginal quality of posterior microhybrid resin composite restorations applied using two polymerisation protocols: 5-year randomised split mouth trial.
    Barabanti N, Gagliani M, Roulet JF, Testori T, Ozcan M, Cerutti A.
    J Dent; 2013 May; 41(5):436-42. PubMed ID: 23454329
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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]

  • 10. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
    Krämer N, Reinelt C, Frankenberger R.
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Aug 01; 17(5):433-41. PubMed ID: 26525008
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique.
    Baratieri LN, Ritter AV.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2001 Aug 01; 13(1):50-7. PubMed ID: 11831309
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Influence of curing methods and matrix type on the marginal seal of class II resin-based composite restorations in vitro.
    Hofmann N, Hunecke A.
    Oper Dent; 2006 Aug 01; 31(1):97-105. PubMed ID: 16536200
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems.
    Kasraei S, Azarsina M, Majidi S.
    Oper Dent; 2011 Aug 01; 36(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 21702678
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations.
    Aggarwal V, Logani A, Jain V, Shah N.
    Oper Dent; 2008 Aug 01; 33(5):587-92. PubMed ID: 18833866
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Swift EJ, Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD.
    Am J Dent; 2008 Jun 01; 21(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 18686764
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. The effect of additional enamel etching and a flowable composite to the interfacial integrity of Class II adhesive composite restorations.
    Belli S, Inokoshi S, Ozer F, Pereira PN, Ogata M, Tagami J.
    Oper Dent; 2001 Jun 01; 26(1):70-5. PubMed ID: 11203780
    [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. The effect of occlusal loading on the microleakage of class V restorations.
    Arisu HD, Uçtasli MB, Eligüzeloglu E, Ozcan S, Omürlü H.
    Oper Dent; 2008 Jun 01; 33(2):135-41. PubMed ID: 18435186
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation.
    Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigão J.
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2013 Feb 01; 25(1):55-69. PubMed ID: 23374411
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. 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]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.