Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: The 10-year report

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 185-194

  Gaengler, Peter ^a   Hoyer, Lngrid ^a   Montag, Regina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GLASS IONOMER; KETAC BOND; KETAC-BOND; RESIN; SILICON DIOXIDE; VISIO MOLAR; VISIO-MOLAR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; COLOR; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTIN; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; ENDODONTICS; EVALUATION; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD; SURFACE PROPERTY; SURVIVAL; TOOTH PULP; ULTRASTRUCTURE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COLOR; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL PULP; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION WEAR; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUARTZ; SURFACE PROPERTIES; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0035380951     PISSN: 14615185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American Dental Association: Acceptance program guidelines for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Council Dent Mater Instr Equipm. Sept 1991.
2. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, Holston AM, Gingeil J. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int 1991:22:143-151.
3. Beer R, Gaengler P, Wutzier P, Krehan F. Vergleichende biologische Prüfung des Glasionomerzementes Ketac-Bond. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1990;45:202-208.
4. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Public Health Service publication No. 790-244, San Francisco, US Government Printing Office, 1971.
5. Dietz W, Montag R, Hoyer l, Kraft U, Gabler P, Voigt M. Der Funktionszustand zahnärztlicher Komposit-Füllungen in einer klinisch-mikromorphologischen 10-Jahresstudie. Eur J Cell Biol 1999;78(suppl 50):35.
6. Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchel DJ. How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review. Brit Dent J 1999:187:432-439.
7. Gaengler P, Hoyer l, Wucherpfennig G, Langer K, Weinert W. Klinisch kontrollierte 5-Jahresstudie zur Füllungsbewertung eines Komposit-Materials. Zahnärztl Welt Ref 1993:102:704709.
8. Gaengler P, Hoyer l. Langer K, Montag R. Surface micromorphology of posterior QIC/Composite restorations after six years. J Dent Res 1994;73:180.
9. Gaengler P, Hoyer l, Langer K, Montag R. Glasionomerzement /Composite-Füllungen an Seitenzähnen. Zahnärztl Welt Ref 1995:104:836-843.
10. Hoyer l, Gaengler P, Montag R, Wucherpfennig G, Langer K. Longitudinal 5-year study of posterior GlC/Composite restorations using CPM-criteria. J Dent Res 1993;72:259.
11. Kamann WK, Gaengler P. Zur Funktionszeit von Amalgam-, Composite und Goldhämmerfüllungen. Zahnärztl Weit Ref 1999:108:270-273.
12. Kosa W, Gaengler P. Klinische Qualität von Amalgamfüllungen nach zehnjähriger Funktionszeit (CPM-Kriterien). Dtsch Stomatol 1991:41:53-56.
13. Mair LH. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 1998;29: 483-490.
14. Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Curtis JW, Erglem JW, Rueggeberg FA, Adair SM. Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations; results at year 10. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129:55-66.
15. Mjör IA, Jokstad A. 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.
16. Montag R, Hoyer I, Gaengler P. Longitudinal clinical 10 year results of posterior GlC/cpmposite restorations. J Dent Res 1998;77:953.
17. Nordbo H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR. Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approximal resin composite restorations: Observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int 1998;29:5-11.
18. Pilz MEW, Hetzer G, Viergutz G. Vergleichende klinische Bewertung von Klasse-l-Füllungen mit Glasionomerzement, Seitenzahnkomposit und Amalgam - Ergebnisse einer 6Jahresstudie. Quintessenz 1994;45:21-34.
19. Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson NH. Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report. J Dent 1999:27:13-19.
20. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30:347-358.
21. Schwarz U, Gaengler P. Der Einflu des bakteriellen Microleakage von Glasionomerzementfüllungen auf den Entzündungszustand der Zahnpulpa. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1998; 53:374-379.
22. Shimizu T, Kitano T, Inoue M, Narikawa K, Fujii B. Ten-year longitudinal clinical evaluation of a visible light cured posterior composite resin. Dent Mat J 1995;14:120-134.
23. Van Dijken WV. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1994; 52:368-376.
24. Weibury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration. BrDentJ 1990;169:361-366.
25. Wilder AD, Bayne SL, May KM, Leinefelder KF, Taylor DF. Fiveyear clinical study of u.v.-polymerized posterior composites. J Dent 1991;19:214-220.
26. Wilson NHF, Wilson MA, Wastell DG, Smith GA. A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative material: five-year results. Quintessence Int 1988;19:675681.