Clinical evaluation of Solitaire-2 restorations placed in United Kingdom general dental practices: 1-Year report

Quintessence International

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 594-599

  Burke, F J Trevor ^a   Crisp, Russell J ^a   Bell, Tracey J ^b   McDermott, Karen ^b   Lamb, Jeff J ^b   Siddons, Chris ^b   Weller, Brent ^b   Balkenhol, Markus ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Clinical evaluation; Packable composite; Resin composite

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL;

ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL CARIES; DENTISTRY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FRACTURE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; ORGANIZATION; REVIEW; TOOTH; TOOTH DISEASE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADHESIVES; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN-BONDING AGENTS; EPOXY COMPOUNDS; HUMANS; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); METHACRYLATES; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RESIN CEMENTS;

EID: 0141729301     PISSN: 00336572     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Burke FJT, Liebler M, Eliades G, et al. Ease of use versus clinical effectiveness. Quintessence Int 2001;32:239-242.
2. Cunningham J, Mair LH, Foster MA, Ireland RS. Clinical evaluation of three posterior composite and two amalgam restorative materials. Br Dent J 1990;169:319-323.
3. Nash RW, Lowe RA, Leinfelder K. Using packable composites for direct posterior placement. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:1099-1104.
4. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:639-645.
5. Burke FJT, Wilson NHF. Introducing the PREP panel. Dent Pract 1994;32(18):30.
6. Crisp RJ, Burke FJT. One-year clinical evaluation of compomer restorations placed in general practice. Quintessence Int 2000;31:181-186.
7. Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices. Quintessence Int 2001;32:293-298.
8. Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique. Quintessence Int 2001;32:805-810.
9. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30:347-357.
10. Opdam NJM, Roeters FJM, Joosten M, vd Veeke O. Class I composite restorations placed with a packing or injection technique [abstract 42]. Dent Res 2000;79:149.
11. Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder K. One-year clinical evaluation of Surefil packable composite. Contin Compend Dent Ed 1999;20:544-553.
12. El-Mowafy OM, Lewis DW, Benmergui C, Levinton C. Meta-analysis on long-term clinical performance of posterior composite restorations. J Dent 1994;22:33-43.
13. Mair LH. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 1998;29:483-490.
14. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs: ADA Council on Dental Benefit programs. Statement on posterior resin-based composites. J Amer Dent Assoc 1998;129:1627-1628.