Fracture strength of cusp replacing resin composite restorations

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 13-16

  Kuijs, Ruud H ^a   Fennis, Willem M M ^a   Kreulen, Cees M ^a   Roeters, Joost J M ^a   Burgersdijk, Rob C W ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DENTAL ALLOY; RESIN;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL SURGERY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; INJURY; MANDIBLE; METHODOLOGY; PREMOLAR TOOTH; TENSILE STRENGTH; TOOTH CROWN; TOOTH FRACTURE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BICUSPID; COMPOSITE RESINS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; MANDIBLE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; TENSILE STRENGTH; TOOTH CROWN; TOOTH FRACTURES;

EID: 0042020386     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Allander L, Birkhed D, Bratthall D. Reasons for replacement of Class II amalgam restorations in private practice. Swed Dent J 1990;14:179-184.
2. Caron GA, Murchison DF, Cohen RB, et al. Resistance to fracture of teeth with various preparations for amalgam. J Dent 1996;24:407-410.
3. Salis SG, Hood JA, Kirk EE, et al. Patterns of indirect fracture in intact and restored human premolar teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1987;3:10-14.
4. Plasmans PJJM, Creugers NHJ, Mulder J. Long term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 1998;77:453-460.
5. Roeters FJM. The extended use of adhesive restorative systems. In: Dondi dall'Orologio G, Prati C (eds). Factors influencing the quality of composite restorations; Theory and practice. Carimate (Como): Ariesdue S.r.l., 1996:165-174.
6. Ulusoy N, Nayyar A, Morris CF, et al. Fracture durability of restored functional cusps on maxillary nonvital premolar teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:330-335.
7. Macpherson LC, Smith BGN. Replacement of missing cusps: an in vitro study. J Dent 1994;22:118-120.
8. Segura A, Riggins R. Fracture resistance of four different restorations for cuspal replacements. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:928-931.
9. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, et al. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quint Int 1991;22:143-151.
10. Berg NG, Derand T. A five-year evaluation of ceramic inlays (Cerec). Swed Dent J 1997;21:121-127.
11. van Dijken JWV, Kieri C, Carlen M. Longevity of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res 1999;78:1319-1325.
12. Hayashi M, Tsuchitani Y, Miura M, et al. Six-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 1998;23:318-326.
13. Mair LH. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quint Int 1998;29:483-490.
14. Welbury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ, et al. The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1990;169:361-366.
15. Wendt S.L, Leinfelder K.F. Clinical evaluation of Clearfil Photoposterior: 3-year results. Am J Dent 1992;5:121-125.
16. Eidenbenz S, Lemer CR, Scharer P. Copy milling ceramic inlays from resin analogs: A practical approach with the celay system. Int J Prosthet 1994;7:134-142.
17. Poschke A. Celay - Ein verfahren zur herstellung keramischer inlays. Quint Int 1993;44:87-99.
18. Shearer AC, Thordrup M, Horsted-Bindslev P, et al. A milled ceramic inlay/onlay system: A report from a series of cases. Br Dent J 1998;185:283-286.