Global-, regional-, and country-level economic impacts of dental diseases in 2015.
J Dent Res. 2018; 97: 501-507
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries: a review.
Int Dent J. 2012; 62: 223-243
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
From ‘direct versus indirect’ toward an integrated restorative concept in the posterior dentition.
Oper Dent. 2016; 41: S27-S34
in Article
- Scopus (17)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Directly placed restorative materials: review and network meta-analysis.
J Dent Res. 2016; 95: 613-622
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Dent Res. 2014; 93: 943-949
in Article
- Scopus (261)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 31; : CD005620
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Risk factors for dental restoration survival: a practice-based study.
J Dent Res. 2019; 98: 414-422
in Article
- Scopus (8)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Restoration survival: revisiting patients’ risk factors through a systematic literature review.
Oper Dent. 2016; 41: S7-S26
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations.
J Dent. 2018; 72: 1-7
in Article
- Scopus (31)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults: a systematic review.
J Dent. 2015; 43: 934-954
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A practice based longevity study on single-unit crowns.
J Dent. 2018; 74: 43-48
in Article
- Scopus (3)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Crown vs. composite for post-retained restorations: a randomized clinical trial.
J Dent. 2016; 48: 34-39
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates, part I—single crowns (SCs).
Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 603-623
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; 31: 222-232
in Article
- Scopus (2)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Is network meta-analysis as valid as standard pairwise meta-analysis? It all depends on the distribution of effect modifiers.
BMC Med. 2013; 11: 159
in Article
- Scopus (229)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3; 10: ED000142
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.
Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162: 777-784
in Article
- Scopus (1239)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Patient risk factors’ influence on survival of posterior composites.
J Dent Res. 2013; 92: 78S-83S
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria2019
in Article
- Google Scholar
Performing arm-based network meta-analysis in R with the pcnetmeta package.
J Stat Softw. 2017; 80: 1-25
in Article
- Scopus (33)
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
meta: an R package for meta-analysis.
R News. 2007; 7: 40-45
in Article
- Google Scholar
General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations.
J Comput Graph Stat. 1998; 7: 434-455
in Article
- Google Scholar
The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928
in Article
- Scopus (9670)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Class II restorations in 6 different posterior composite resins: 5-year results.
Swed Dent J. 1995; 19: 173-182
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Retrospective clinical investigation and survival analysis on ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: results up to 7 years.
Clin Oral Investig. 1998; 2: 161-167
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Long-term clinical performance and longevity of gold alloy vs ceramic partial crowns.
Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7: 80-85
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting.
Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17: 302-306
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations.
J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9: 469-475
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.
J Dent Res. 2010; 89: 1063-1067
in Article
- Scopus (306)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations.
Restor Dent Endod. 2013; 38: 11-20
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A practice-based study on the survival of restored endodontically treated teeth.
J Endod. 2013; 39: 1335-1340
in Article
- PubMed
- Abstract
- Full Text
- Full Text PDF
- Google Scholar
18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base.
Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 669-675
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations.
Dent Mater. 2016; 32: 687-694
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices: descriptive study out of a practice based research network.
J Dent. 2016; 46: 12-17
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students.
J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 336-339
in Article
- PubMed
- Abstract
- Full Text
- Full Text PDF
- Google Scholar
A practice-based clinical evaluation of the survival and success of metal-ceramic and zirconia molar crowns: 5-year results.
J Oral Rehabil. 2016; 43: 136-144
in Article
- Scopus (13)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
An up to 50-year follow-up of crown and veneer survival in a dental practice.
J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 935-941
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Abstract
- Full Text
- Full Text PDF
- Google Scholar
Quality and survival of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth: a 5- to 20-year retrospective longitudinal study.
J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e195-e203
in Article
- Scopus (13)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A five year study of the clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material.
J Dent. 1989; 17 (discussion S26-S28): S6-S9
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A 5-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam.
J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 523-529
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Abstract
- Full Text PDF
- Google Scholar
Five-year study of class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement and resin-based composite materials.
J Dent. 1993; 21: 338-343
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Tunnel restorations: a long-term pilot study over a minimum of five years.
J Dent. 1995; 23: 213-215
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.
Quintessence Int. 1998; 29: 483-490
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Long-term clinical results of galvano-ceramic and glass-ceramic individual crowns.
J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83: 530-534
in Article
- PubMed
- Abstract
- Full Text
- Full Text PDF
- Google Scholar
An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the Cerec CAD/CAM system.
Eur J Oral Sci. 2000; 108: 239-246
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.
J Dent. 2000; 28: 299-306
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.
J Dent. 2000; 28: 375-382
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays.
Quintessence Int. 2001; 32: 199-205
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Composite resin fillings and inlays: an 11-year evaluation.
Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7: 71-79
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results.
Oper Dent. 2005; 30: 9-15
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.
JADA. 2007; 138: 775-783
in Article
- PubMed
- Abstract
- Full Text
- Full Text PDF
- Google Scholar
Long-term clinical evaluation of 2 dental materials used for the preparation of esthetic inlays [in French].
Odontostomatol Trop. 2009; 32: 5-13
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Controlled, prospective clinical split-mouth study of cast gold vs. ceramic partial crowns: 5.5 year results.
Am J Dent. 2010; 23: 161-167
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Prospective clinical split-mouth study of pressed and CAD/CAM all-ceramic partial-coverage restorations: 7-year results.
Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26: 21-25
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Five-year results of a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial of posterior computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing ZrSiO4-ceramic crowns.
J Oral Rehabil. 2013; 40: 609-617
in Article
- Scopus (10)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Randomized control trial of composite cuspal restorations: five-year results.
J Dent Res. 2014; 93: 36-41
in Article
- Scopus (31)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations.
J Adhes Dent. 2014; 16: 585-592
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Ten-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations.
J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17: 433-441
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in class II restorations.
J Dent. 2015; 43: 1547-1558
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in class II restorations.
Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 1232-1244
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Five-year evaluation of a low-shrinkage Silorane resin composite material: a randomized clinical trial.
Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 245-251
in Article
- Scopus (17)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite.
Dent Mater. 2015; 31: 1150-1158
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up.
Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1683-1690
in Article
- Scopus (13)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: a 5-year randomized controlled clinical study.
J Dent. 2016; 51: 29-35
in Article
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Zirconia-based versus metal-based single crowns veneered with overpressing ceramic for restoration of posterior endodontically treated teeth: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study.
J Dent. 2017; 65: 56-63
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?.
Braz Oral Res. 2017; 31: 92-99
in Article
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials.
Dent Mater. 2012; 28: 87-101
in Article
- Scopus (418)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry–European section.
J Dent. 2014; 42: 377-383
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: design, conduct, analysis.
Dent Mater. 2018; 34: 29-39
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Critical quality evaluation of network meta-analyses in dental care.
J Dent. 2018; 75: 7-11
in Article
- Scopus (0)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar
Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations: a meta-analysis.
J Adhes Dent. 2012; 14: 407-431
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition.
Oper Dent. 2004; 29: 481-508
in Article
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Dent. 2016; 54: 1-12
in Article
- Scopus (31)
- PubMed
- Crossref
- Google Scholar