5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions

Operative Dentistry

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 403-408

  Franco, Eduardo Batista ^a   Benetti, Ana Raquel ^a   Ishikiriama, Sérgio Kiyoshi ^a   Santiago, Sérgio Lima ^b   Lauris, José Roberto Pereira ^a   Jorge, Mauro Fonseca Ferreira ^c   Navarro, Maria Fidela De Lima ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF CEARÁ   (Brazil)

^c Military Police of São Paulo ^*  (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747801390     PISSN: 03617734     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2341/05-87     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Abdalla AI & Alhadainy HA (1997) Clinical evaluation of hybrid ionomer restoratives in Class V abrasion lesions: Two-year results Quintessence International 28(4) 255-258.
2. American Dental Association-ADA (1996) Acceptance program guidelines-restorative materials 1-10 Retrieved online May 11, 2005 from: http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/standards/guide_restor_material.pdf
3. Brackett MG, Dib A, Brackett WW, Estrada BE & Reyes AA (2002) One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations Operative Dentistry 27(2) 112-116.
4. Browning WD, Brackett WW & Gilpatrick RO (2000) Two-year clinical comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid resin-based composite in non-carious Class V lesions Operative Dentistry 25(1) 46-50.
5. Burrow MF & Tyas MJ (1999) One-year clinical evaluation of one-step in non-carious cervical lesions American Journal of Dentistry 12(6) 283-285.
6. Duke ES & Trevino DF (1998) A resin-modified glass ionomer restorative: Three-year clinical results Journal Indiana Dental Association 77(3) 13-6, 25.
7. Ermis RB (2002) Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions Quintessence International 33(7) 542-548.
8. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Barbosa AN & Roulet JF (2003) Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in non-carious cervical lesions Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 5(4) 323-332.
9. Maneenut C & Tyas MJ (1995) Clinical evaluation of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative cements in cervical "abrasion" lesions: One-year results Quintessence International 26(10) 739-743.
10. Merte K, Fröhlich M, Häfer M, Hirsch E, Schneider H & Winkler M (2000) Two-year clinical performance of two primer adhesives on Class V restorations Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 53(1) 93-99.
11. Neo J, Chew CL, Yap A & Sidhu S (1996) Clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in cervical lesions American Journal of Dentistry 9(1) 15-18.
12. Özgünaltay G & Önen A (2002) Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious Class V lesions Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29(11) 1037-1041.
13. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P & Vanherle G (2003) Two-year clinical effectiveness of a resin modified glass ionomer adhesive American Journal of Dentistry 16(6) 363-368.
14. Powell LV, Johnson GH & Gordon GE (1995) Factors associated with clinical success of cervical abrasion/erosion restorations Operative Dentistry 20(1) 7-13.
15. Powell LV, Gordon GE & Johnson GH (1992) Clinical comparison of Class V resin composite and glass ionomer restorations American Journal of Dentistry 5(5) 249-252.
16. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria International Dental Journal 30(4) 347-358.
17. Santiago SL, Franco EB, Mendonça JS, Lauris JRP & Lima Navarro MF (2003) One-year clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in non-carious cervical lesions Journal of Applied Oral Science 11 175-180.
18. Sidhu SK & Watson TF (1995) Resin-modified glass ionomer materials: A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry American Journal of Dentistry 8(1) 59-67.
19. Tay FR & Pashley DH (2004) Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: A review Journal of Dentistry 32(3) 173-196.
20. Tay FR, Frankenberger R, Krejci I, Bouillaguet S, Pashley DH, Carvalho RM & Lai CN (2004) Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. I. In vivo evidence Journal of Dentistry 32(8) 611-621.
21. Türkün SL (2003) Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years Journal of Dentistry 31(8) 527-534.
22. van Dijken JW (2004) Durability of three simplified adhesive systems in Class V non carious cervical dentin lesions American Journal of Dentistry 17(1) 27-32.
23. van Dijken JW (2000) Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in Class V non-carious lesions Dental Materials 16(4) 285-291.
24. van Dijken JW (1994) Clinical evaluation of four dentin bonding agents in Class V abrasion lesions: A four-year follow-up Dental Materials 10(5) 319-324.
25. van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Wakasa K & Nakayama Y (1998) Mechanisms of bonding of a resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive to dentin Journal of Dental Research 77 Abstract #2236 p 911.
26. Yap AUJ & Neo JLC (1995) Non-carious cervical tooth loss Part 2: Management Dental Update 22(10) 364-368.
27. Yoshiyama M, Sano H, Ebisu S, Tagami J, Ciucchi B, Johnson MH & Pashley DH (1996) Regional strengths of bonding agents to cervical sclerotic root dentin Journal of Dental Research 75(6) 1404-1413.