Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 202

1.

A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.

Cetin AR, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N.

Oper Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr;38(2):E1-11. doi: 10.2341/12-160-C. Epub 2012 Dec 5.

PMID:
23215545
2.

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 1;11(3):025-32.

PMID:
20461321
3.
4.

Clinical wear rate of direct and indirect posterior composite resin restorations.

Cetin AR, Unlu N.

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2012 Jun;32(3):e87-94.

PMID:
22408783
5.

Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth.

Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM, Hamama HH.

J Adhes Dent. 2008 Aug;10(4):315-22.

PMID:
18792703
6.

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 1;9(4):26-33.

PMID:
18473024
7.

Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities.

Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P.

J Adhes Dent. 2009 Oct;11(5):399-404.

PMID:
19841767
8.

Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.

Deliperi S, Bardwell DN.

J Esthet Restor Dent. 2006;18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7.

PMID:
16987320
9.

Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.

Yazici AR, Ustunkol I, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B.

Oper Dent. 2014 May-Jun;39(3):248-55. doi: 10.2341/13-221-C.

PMID:
24754716
10.

Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.

Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R.

J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Sep;84(3):289-96.

PMID:
11005901
11.
12.
13.

Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.

Huth KC, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R, Manhart J.

J Dent. 2011 Jul;39(7):478-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.04.005. Epub 2011 Apr 27.

PMID:
21554920
14.

Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.

Lange RT, Pfeiffer P.

Oper Dent. 2009 May-Jun;34(3):263-72. doi: 10.2341/08-95.

PMID:
19544814
15.

Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: two-year results.

Arhun N, Celik C, Yamanel K.

Oper Dent. 2010 Jul-Aug;35(4):397-404. doi: 10.2341/09-345-C.

PMID:
20672723
16.

Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R.

J Adhes Dent. 2010 Jun;12(3):237-43. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a17551.

PMID:
20157663
17.

Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.

van Dijken JW.

J Dent. 2000 Jul;28(5):299-306.

PMID:
10785294
18.

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;37(7):532-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02073.x. Epub 2010 Feb 25.

PMID:
20202097
19.

Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.

Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Gurgan S.

Oper Dent. 2009 Jan-Feb;34(1):11-7. doi: 10.2341/08-48.

PMID:
19192832
20.

Supplemental Content

Support Center