Direct restorative materials use in Australia in 2002

Australian Dental Journal

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 185-191

  Burke, F J T ^a   McHugh, S ^b   Randall, R C ^c   Meyers, I A ^d   Pitt, J ^c   Hall, A C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c 3M COMPANY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Amalgam; Composite; Materials; Techniques; Usage

Indexed keywords

AMALGAM; BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; GLASS IONOMER; RESIN; RUBBER;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL CARIES; DENTIST; DENTISTRY; FINANCE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MOLAR TOOTH; PATIENT; QUESTIONNAIRE;

EID: 11844282204     PISSN: 00450421     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2004.tb00071.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Berry TG, Summitt JB, Chung AKH, Osborne JW. Amalgam at the new millennium. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1547-1556.
2. Todd JE, Lader D. Adult Dental Health Survey 1988. London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1991.
3. Burke FJT, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NHF. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 1999;30:234-242.
4. Forss H, Widstrom E. From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand 2001;59:57-62.
5. Feilzer AJ, DeGee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation ot the configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987;66:1636-1639.
6. Cunningham J, Foster MA, Mair LH, Ireland RS. Clinical evaluation of three posterior composite and two amalgam restorative materials: 3 year results. Br Dent J 1990;169:319-323.
7. Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR. Survival analysis of posterior restoration using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent 2002;27:488-492.
8. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 1997;25:459-473.
9. Statement of Dental Remuneration. Amendment No 86, April 2001. London: HMSO, 2001.
10. Blum IG, Schriever A, Heidemann D, Mjör IA, Wilson NHF. Repair versus replacement of defective direct composite restorations in teaching programmes in United Kingdom and Irish dental schools. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2002;10:151-155.
11. Mjör IA. Selection of restorative materials in general dental practice in Norway. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55:53-57.
12. Ylinen K, Lofroth G. Nordic dentists' knowledge and attitudes on dental amalgam from health and environmental perspectives. Acta Odontol Scand 2002;60:315-320.
13. Widstrom E, Forss H. Dental practitioners' experiences on the usefulness of restorative materials in Finland 1992-1996. Br Dent J 1998;185:540-542.
14. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: The Total Design Method. 1977, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
15. Tan RT, Burke FJT. Response rates to questionnaires mailed to dentists. A review of 77 publications. Int Dent J 1997;47:349-354.
16. Brennan DS, Spencer AJ. Restorative service trends in private general practice in Australia: 1983-1999. J Dent 2003;31:143-151.
17. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs: ADA Council on Dental Benefit programs. Statement on posterior resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1627-1628.
18. Sarll DW, Holloway PJ. Factors influencing innovation in general dental practice. Br Dent J 1982;153:264-266.
19. Burke FJT, Shortall ACC. Successful restoration of load-bearing cavities in posterior teeth with direct-placement resin-based composite. Dent Update 2001;28:388-398.
20. Burke FJT, McHugh S, Hall AC, et al. Amalgam and composite use in UK dental practice in 2001. Br Dent J 2003;194:613-618.