Direct placement restorative materials for use in posterior teeth: The current options

New Zealand Dental Journal

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 10-15

  Lyons, Karl ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMALGAM; DENTIN BONDING AGENT; FISSURE SEALANT; GLASS IONOMER; RESIN;

BIOMECHANICS; CONTACT ALLERGY; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL EQUIPMENT; DENTAL HEALTH; ESTHETICS; REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; BICUSPID; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; HUMANS; MOLAR; TENSILE STRENGTH;

EID: 3442886770     PISSN: 00288047     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Alanko K, Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Kannas L, and Estlander T (1996). Oral mucosal diseases investigated by patch testing with a dental screening series. Contact Dermatitis 34: 263-267.
2. Bagedahl-Strindlund M, Ilie M, Furhoff AK, Tomson Y, et al (1997). A multidisciplinary clinical study of patients suffering from illness associated with mercury release from dental restorations: psychiatric aspects. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 96: 475-482.
3. Boyd ND, Benediktsson H, Vimy MJ, Hooper DE, et al (1991). Mercury from dental "silver" tooth fillings impairs sheep kidney function. American Journal of Physiology 261: R1010-1014.
4. Buonocore MG (1955). A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. Journal of Dental Research 34: 849-853.
5. Cueto EI and Buonocore MG (1967). Sealing of pits and fissures with an adhesive resin: its use in caries prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association 75: 121-128.
6. Dodes JE (2001). The amalgam controversy. An evidence-based analysis. Journal of the American Dental Association 132: 348-356.
7. Eley BM (1997). The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. Part 7: Possible alternative materials to amalgam for the restoration of posterior teeth. British Dental Journal 183: 11-14.
8. Enwonwu CO (1987). Potential health hazard of use of mercury in dentistry: critical review of the literature. Environmental Research 42: 257-274.
9. Feigal RJ (1998). Sealants and preventive restorations: review of effectiveness and clinical changes for improvement. Pediatric Dentistry 20: 85-92.
10. Fortin D and Vargas MA (2000). The spectrum of composites: new techniques and materials. Journal of the American Dental Association 131 Suppl: 26S-30S.
11. Hilton TJ (2001). Packable composites. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 13: 69-75.
12. Hondrum SO (2000). The longevity of resin-based composite restorations in posterior teeth. General Dentistry 48: 398-404.
13. Hood JAA (1991a). Why amalgam? New Zealand Dental Journal 87: 36-39.
14. Hood JAA (1991b). Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and restored tooth: some clinical implications. International Dental Journal 41: 25-32.
15. Jones DW (1994). The enigma of amalgam in dentistry. British Dental Journal 177: 159-170.
16. Lutz F and Krejci I (2000). Amalgam substitutes: a critical analysis. Journal of Esthetic Dentistry 12: 146-159.
17. Mackert JR and Berglund A (1997). Mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings: absorbed dose and the potential for adverse health effects. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine 8: 410-436.
18. Malt UF, Nerdrum P, Oppedal B, Gundersen R, et al (1997). Physical and mental problems attributed to dental amalgam fillings: a descriptive study of 99 self-referred patients compared with 272 controls. Psychosomatic Medicine 59: 32-41.
19. Mejare I and Mjor IA (1990). Glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants: a clinical study. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 98: 345-350.
20. Mount GJ (1997). Longevity in glass-ionomer restorations: review of a successful technique. Quintessence International 28: 643-650.
21. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, and Masuhara E (1982). The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 16: 265-273.
22. NHMRC (1999). Dental amalgam and mercury in dentistry - Report of a National Health and Medical Research Council Working Party. (www.health.gov.au/ nhmrc).
23. Nicholson JW and Croll TP (1997). Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence International 28: 705-714.
24. Pashley DH, Ciucchi B, Sano H, and Horner JA (1993). Permeability of dentin to adhesive agents. Quintessence International 24: 618-631.
25. Roulet J-F (1997). Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. Journal of Dentistry 25: 459-473.
26. Sandborgh-Englund G, Elinder CG, Langworth S, Schutz A, et al (1998). Mercury in biological fluids after amalgam removal. Journal of Dental Research 77: 615-624.
27. Santini A and Mitchell S (1998). Effect of wet and dry bonding techniques on marginal leakage. American Journal of Dentistry 11: 219-224.
28. Simonsen RJ (1978a). Preventive resin restorations (I). Quintessence International 9: 69-76.
29. Simonsen RJ (1978b). Preventive resin restorations (II). Quintessence International 9: 95-102.
30. Spencer P and Swafford JR (1999). Unprotected protein at the dentin-adhesive interface. Quintessence International 30: 501-507.
31. Unterbrink GL and Liebenberg WH (1999). Flowable resin composites as "filled adhesives": literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence International 30: 249-257.
32. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, and Vanherle G (1998). The clinical performance of adhesives. Journal of Dentistry 26: 1-20.