I recommend lens hoods over UV/clear filters for protection. Filters can be a hassle because you must remove them for nighttime shooting (or risk increased lens flare). Even the best multicoated filters (Hoya Super HMC, B+W F-PRO MRC, Heliopan SH-PMC) will degrade image quality somewhat and cause slightly inceased flare. If you still insist on using a filter, stick with the best. Do not buy a cheap uncoated filter like Tiffen (or worse, one of the eBay no-names). The worst filters can not only wreak havoc on image quality, but can also mess with your camera's AF system and cause focus inaccuracies.
Someone on the Canon forum once posted a thread asking why his brand-new, $1000 135mm f/2L lens produced images that were soft and mis-focused. After a few pages of replies, somebody finally suggested that he remove the cheapo filter that came with the lens. That solved the problem immediately.
Also, if you drop a lens with a lens hood attached, all you have to replace is a $20 lens hood. The plastic hood will absorb most of the shock. In contrast, if you drop a lens with a metal filter attached, the metal filter ring can deform and make the filter nearly impossible to remove (this actually happened with a Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 that we use at the school newspaper...the filter, sans glass, is still stuck on the lens). In addition, if the glass in the filter cracks upon impact, it will send shards of glass straight into the front element of your lens. How's that for protection?
The only filters that I can endorse the use of are circular polarizers and neutral density filters. UV filters are unnecessary under nearly all conditions and will only degrade image quality. I would only use a UV filter if it was absolutely necessary to complete the sealing on an already weather-sealed lens like the Canon 17-40L. Otherwise, unless you're shooting in wet/dusty/dangerous conditions with a weather-sealed lens and camera (which the D90 and 18-105 are not), then I don't see the point of using a UV or protection filter.