Eight‐year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth

References

• Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Statement of Mer-cury. Use-contamination-proposals for solution. Copenhagen: Notex-Grafisk Service Center; 1987.
   Google Scholar
• Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:297–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48: 305–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick NM. Durability of restorations in primary molars. J Dent 1993;21:67–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick BL, Dummer PMH, Dunstan F, Gilmour ASM, Jones RJ, Phillips CJ, et al. The longevity of dental restorations. A systematic review. York: York Publishing Services Ltd; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Qvist V. Longevity of restorations in primary teeth. In: Hugoson A, Falk M, Johansson S, editors: Consensus conference on caries in the primary dentition and its clinical management. Stockholm: Förlagshuset Gothia; 2002. p. 69–83.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer N. Moderne Filllungstherapie im Milch- und Wechsel-gebiB. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1997;52:89–99.
   Google Scholar
• Forss H, Widström E. Factors influencing the selection of restorative materials in dental care in Finland. J Dent 1996;24: 257–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norwegian Board of Health. The Use of Dental filling Materials in Norway. IK 2675. Oslo: Norwegian Board of Health; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. J Dent Res 1997;76:1387–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Board of Health Sundhedsstyrelsen, Denmark (1992; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1996). Copenhagen: National Statistics Child Oral Health Care; 1991; 1992; 1993; 1994; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• American Dental Association acceptance program guidelines for resin-based composites for posterior restorations. Chicago: American Dental Association, Council on Scientific Affairs; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Vigild M, Skak-Iversen L, Friis-Hasché E. Danish Child Oral Health Care Service: Legislation, Registration System, and Organization. In: Friis-Hasché E, editor: Child Oral Health Care in Denmark. Copenhagen: Copenhagen University Press; 1994. p. 17–20.
   Google Scholar
• Collett D. Modelling survival data in medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Mjör IA. Long-term cost of restorative therapy using different materials. Scand J Dent Res 1992;100:60–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hickel R, Voss A. A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgam restorations in primary molars. J Dent Child 1990;57: 184–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welbury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991;170:177–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick NM, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial. Br Dent J 1995;179:175–9.
   Google Scholar
• Espelid I, Tveit AB, Tomes KH, Alvheim H. Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth. J Dent 1999;27: 437–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J 2000;189: 93–7.
   Google Scholar
• Had S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13:2–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mjör IA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Placement and replacement of restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand 2002;60:25–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mjör IA, Jokstad A. Five-year study of class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkeonate (ionomer) cermet and resin-based composite materials. J Dent 1993;21:338–43.
   Google Scholar
• Poulsen S. Caries in the primary dentition as a health problem: epidemiology and ethics. In: Hugoson A, Falk M, Johansson S, editors. Consensus conference on caries in the primary dentition and its clinical management. Stockholm: Förlagshuset Gothia; 2002. p. 11–22.
   Google Scholar
• WHO 1997. Dental amalgam and alternative direct restorative materials. In: Mjiir IA, Pakhomov GN editors. Geneva: WHO; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• MFR 1992. Potential biological consequences of mercury released from dental amalgam. Proceedings from a conference. Stockholm: Swedish Medical Research Council; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• NHI 1991. Effect and side-effects of dental restorative materials. Adv Dent Res 1992;6:1–144.
   Google Scholar
• Qvist V, Johannessen L, Bruun M. Progression of approximal caries in relation to iatrogenic preparation damage. J Dent Res 1992;71:1370–3.
   Google Scholar
• Mejare I, Stenlund H, Julihn A, Larsson I, Permert L. Influence of approximal caries in primary molars on caries rate for the first permanent molar's mesial surface in Swedish children from 6 to 12 years of age. Caries Res 2001;35: 178–85.
   Google Scholar
• Mjiir IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 2000;50:361–6.
   Google Scholar
• Oldenburg TR, Vann WF, Dilley DC. Composite restorations for primary molars: two-year results. Pediatr Dent 1985;7:96–103.
   Google Scholar
• Oldenburg TR, Vann WF, Dilley DC. Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children. Dent Mater 1987;3: 182–6.
   Google Scholar
• Barr-Agholme M, Odén A, Dahlia G, Modeér T. A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars. Dent Mater 1991;7:230–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong FSL, Day SJ. An investigation of factors influencing the longevity of restorations in primary molars. J Int Ass Dent Child 1990;20:11–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Miinting JS. Three-year follow up assessment of class II resto-rations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J Dent 2001;14:148–52.
   Google Scholar
• Ozer L, Thylstrup A. What is known about caries in relation to restorations as a reason for replacement? A review. Adv Dent Res 1995;9:394–402.
   Google Scholar
• Randall RC, Wilson NHF. Glass-ionomer restoratives: a sys-tematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res 1999;78:628–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mjiir IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 2000;31:165–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MejAre I, KällestAl C, Stenlund H. Incidence and progression of approximal caries from 11 to 22 years of age in Sweden: a prospective radiographic study. Caries Res 1999;33:93–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokstad A, Mjiir IA. Clinical variables affecting the marginal degradation of amalgam restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1990; 48:379–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand GV, Nordbo H, Tveit AB, Espelid I, Wikstrand K, Eide GE. A 3-year clinical study of tunnel restorations. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:384–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, Dijken JVVV, van. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars. A multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55:255–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letzel H, Van 't Hof MA, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ. The influence of the amalgam alloy on the survival of amalgam restorations: a secondary analysis of multiple controlled clinical trials. J Dent Res 1997;76:1787–98.
   Google Scholar
• Folkesson UH, Andersson-Wenckert IE, Duken JWV, van.. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars. Swed Dent J 1999;23:1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar