Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations

doi:10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 6, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (13996)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-7) series, Tables (1-5) series.

Item

Count

PDF

653

WORD

353

HTML

10548

Figures (1-7)

287

Tables (1-5)

280

Sum=12121

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

851

Download

1024

Sum=1875

Mar 16, 2018 (publication date) through Nov 29, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (2)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Clinical Cases

ISSN

2307-8960

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Prospective Study

World J Clin Cases. Mar 16, 2018; 6(3): 27-34
Published online Mar 16, 2018. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27

Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 1 Fractured maxillary central incisors.

Citation: Ayna B, Ayna E, Çelenk S, Başaran EG, Yılmaz BD, Tacir İH, Tuncer MC. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations. World J Clin Cases 2018; 6(3): 27-34
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v6/i3/27.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27