Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn , Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Fedorowicz, Zbys ^a   Nasser, Mona ^b   Wilson, Nairn ^c  

^a Ministry of Health   (Bahrain)

^b INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

^c ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DENTAL ALLOY; ADHESIVE AGENT;

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; DENTAL CARIES; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LONGEVITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TASK PERFORMANCE; DENTAL BONDING; FOLLOW UP; TOOTH FILLING; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ADULT; DENTAL SURGERY; METHODOLOGY;

ADULT; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; HUMANS;

EID: 70249136482     PISSN: 1469493X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007517     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Ben-Amar A, Cardash HS, Judes H. The sealing of the tooth/amalgam interface by corrosion products. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1995;22(2):101-104
2. Berry TG, Summitt JB, Chung AK, Osborne JW. Amalgam at the new millennium. Journal of the American Dental Association 1998;129(11):1547-1556
3. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjor IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. Journal of Dentistry 2001;29(5):317-324
4. Chadwick BL, Dummer PMH, Dunstan F, Gilmour A, Jones R, et al.A systematic review of the longevity of dental restorations. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York 2001; Vol.Report number 19.
5. Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ. How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review. British Dental Journal 1999;187(8):432-439
6. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-634 (Pubitemid 27387172)
7. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, et al.Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clinical Oral Investigations 2007;11(1):5-33.
8. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-560
9. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008] The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
10. Mackert JR, Wahl MJ. Are there acceptable alternatives to amalgam?. Journal of the California Dental Association 2004;32(7):601-610
11. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
12. Robert Y, Sheiham A. The burden of restorative dental treatment for children in Third World countries. International Dental Journal 2002;52(1):1-9.
13. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. International Dental Journal 1981;30(4):347-358
14. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). The safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration materials for patients and users. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph- risk/committees/04-scenihr/scenihr-cons-07-en.htm [Accessed 28 March 2008].
15. Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Operative Dentistry 2000;25(2):121-129
16. Turner EW, St Germain HA, Meiers JC. Microleakage of dentin-amalgam bonding agents. American Journal of Dentistry 1995;8(4):191-196
17. Sheiham A. Oral health, general health and quality of life. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/ volumes/83/9/644.pdf [Accessed 28 March 2008] 2005; Vol.83, issue 9:644.