Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices

British Dental Journal

Volumn 203, Issue 1, 2007, Pages

  Burke, F J T ^a   Siddons, C ^b   Phipps, S ^b   Bardha, J ^b   Crisp, R J ^a   Dopheide, B ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b School of Dentistry ^*

^c GC Europe NV   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FUJI IX; GLASS IONOMER; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DENTAL SURGERY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR TOOTH; MULTICENTER STUDY; PREMOLAR TOOTH; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BICUSPID; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FEMALE; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 34547224198     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: 17417503     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2007.529     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Burke F J T, McCord J F. Research in general dental practice - problems and solutions. Br Dent J 1993; 175: 396-398.
2. Burke F J T, Crisp R J, McCord J F. Research In dental practices SWOT analysis. Dent Update 2002; 29: 80-87.
3. Burke F J T. Amalgam to tooth-coloured materials- implications for clinical practice and dental education: governmental restrictions and amalgam-usage survey results. J Dent 2004; 32:343-350.
4. Manhart J, Chen H Y, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and Indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 481-508.
5. Burke F J T. Attitudes to posterior composite filling materials: a survey of 80 patients. Dent Update 1989; 16:114-120.
6. Hassan M A, Watson T F. Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 1998; 11:36-45.
7. Wilson A D, Kent B E. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972; 132: 133-135.
8. Dental Practice Board. Digest of statistics, April 2002 - March 2003. Eastbourne: Dental Practice Board, 2003.
9. Combe E C, Burke F J T, Douglas W H. Clinical dental materials. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
10. Randall R C, Wilson NHF. Glass ionomer restoratives: a systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res 1999; 78: 628-637.
11. Sidhu S K, Watson T F. Resin modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 1995; 8: 59-67.
12. Kao E C, Rezvan E, Johnson W M. Microhardness as an Indicator for finishing time in ionomer restorations. J Dent Res 1994; 73:220 [abstract no. 945].
13. Momol Y, Hirosaki K, Kohno A, McCabe J F. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1997; 13: 82-88.
14. Dentsply De Trey GmbH Professional Research. Chemflex technical manual, pp 25. Germany: Dentsply De Trey, 1998.
15. Ketac Molar quick product brochure, www 3mespe.com.
16. GC Fuji IX and Fuji IX GP fastmanual.www.gceurope.com.
17. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980; 30:347-357.
18. Welbury R R, Walls A W G, Murray J J, McCabe J F. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (Ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991; 170:177-181.
19. Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in class Il restorations in primary molars - a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992; 16: 81-86.
20. Ovist V, Manscher E, Teglers P T. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004; 32: 285-294.
21. Yap A U J, Teo J C M, Teoh S H. Comparative wear resistance of reinforced glass Ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 2001; 26:343-348.
22. Van Duinen R N B, Kleverlaan C J, de Gee A J, Werner A, Felizer A J. Early and long-term wear of "Fast-set" conventional glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2005; 21:716-720.
23. Deligeorgi V, Mjor I A, Wilson N H F. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Primary Dent Care 2001; 8: 5-11.