The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations

British Dental Journal

Volumn 196, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 42-45

  Jones, C S ^a   Billington, R W ^a   Pearson, G J ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RESIN;

ARTICLE; ENAMEL; PERCEPTION; SAMPLING; SURFACE PROPERTY; TONGUE; VOLUNTEER; ADULT; DENTAL SURGERY; ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; TOOTH BRUSHING; TOUCH;

ADULT; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL ENAMEL; DENTAL POLISHING; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON; MIDDLE AGED; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TONGUE; TOUCH;

EID: 14844330645     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Van Noort R. Controversial aspects of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1983; 155: 360-385.
2. Wright S M. Oral awareness and ability to detect dental plaque. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 461-467.
3. Smales R J, Creaven P J. Evaluation of clinical methods for assessing the surface roughness of restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42: 45-52.
4. Bosma J F. Third symposium on oral sensation and perception. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1992, pp. 46.
5. Ten Cate A R. Oral Histology. Development, structure and function. St Louis: Mosby, 1994.
6. Stout K J. Surface Roughness - measurement, interpretation and significance of data. Mat Eng 1981; 2: 260-265.
7. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int, 1993; 24: 641-658.