Evaluation of interfacial bond strengths between amalgam and composite inlay

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 131-133

  Abdel Aziz, Alaa H ^a   Alhadainy, Hatem A ^a  

^a TANTA UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGESTAN; ALL BOND 2; ALL-BOND 2; DENTAL ALLOY; GERISTORE; GLASS IONOMER; METHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; RESIN; VALIANT PHD;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL SURGERY; MATERIALS TESTING; METHODOLOGY; TENSILE STRENGTH;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL ALLOYS; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL BONDING; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; INLAYS; MATERIALS TESTING; METHACRYLATES; RESINS, SYNTHETIC; TENSILE STRENGTH;

EID: 0032104914     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Barbakow F, Gaberthuel T, Lutz F, et al. Maintenance of amalgam restorations. Quint Int 1988; 19: 861-870.
2. Leelawat C, Scherer W, Chang J, et al. Bonding fresh amalgam to existing amalgam: A shear and flexural strength study. J Esthet Dent 1992; 4: 46-49.
3. Angus LF, Fine L. The amalgam-composite restoration. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47: 685.
4. Cardash HS, Bichacho N, Imber S, et al. A combined amalgam and composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 63: 502-505.
5. Gordon M, Laufer B, Metzgh Z. Composite veneered amalgam restoration. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 50: 759-762.
6. st century. Quint Int 1993; 24: 641-658.
7. McCullock AJ, Smith BN. In vitro studies of cuspal movement produced by adhesive restorative materials. Br Dent J 1986; 161: 405-409.
8. Reeves GW, Lentz DL, McDonald MD, et al. Comparison of marginal adaptation between direct and indirect composite. Oper Dent 1992; 17: 210-214.
9. Hunter AR, Treasure ET, Hunter AJ. Increases in cavity volume associated with the removal of class 2 amalgam and composite restorations. Oper Dent 1995; 20: 2-6.
10. García-Godoy F, Malone WP. Microleakage of posterior composite resin using glass ionomer cement bases. Quint Int 1988;19:13-17.
11. Brännström M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent 1984 ; 9: 57-68.
12. Trowbridge HO. Model systems for determining biologic effects of microleakage. Oper Dent 1987; 12: 164-72.
13. Gendusa NJ. Hydrolysis of 4-META/MMA-TBB resins. A myth. J Esthet Dent 1992; 4: 58-61.
14. Hadavi F, HEY J H, Ambrose E R, et al. The influence of an adhesive system on shear bond strength of repaired high-copper amalgams. Oper Dent 1991; 16: 175-180.
15. Miller HB, Arita K, Tamura N, et al. Bond strengths of various materials to dentin using Amalgambond. Am J Dent 1992; 5: 277-286.
16. Al-Moayad M, Aboush YEY, Elderton RJ. Bonded amalgam restoration: A comparative study of glass-ionomer and resin adhesives. Br Dent J 1993; 175: 363-367.
17. DeSchepper EJ, Cailleteau JG, Roeder L. In vitro tensile bond strengths of amalgam to treated dentin. J Esthet Dent 1991; 3: 117-120.
18. Bichacho N, Pilo R, Brosh T, et al. Shear bond strength of composite resin to fresh amalgam. Oper Dent 1995; 20: 68-73.