Selection of restorative materials in permanent teeth in general dental practice

References

• Simonsen RJ. New materials on the horizon. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122:25•31.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen GJ. Acceptability of alternatives for conservative restorations of posterior teeth. J Esthet Dent 1995;7:228•32.
   Google Scholar
• Leinfelder KF. A conservative approach to placing posterior composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:743•8.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA. Selection of restorative materials in general dental practice in Sweden. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55: 53•7.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA, Moorhead J. Selection of restorative materials, reasons for replacement and longevity of restorations in Florida. J Am Coll Dent 1998;65: 27•33.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA. The long-term cost of restorative therapy using different materials. Scand J Dent Res 1992;100: 60•5.
   Google Scholar
• Kroeze HJP, Plasschaert AJM, van't Hof MA, Truin GJ. Prevalence and need for replacement of amalgam and composite restorations in Dutch adults. J Dent Res 1990;69:1270•4.
   Google Scholar
• Berset GP, Eriksen HM, Bjertness E, et al. Caries experience of 35-year-old Oslo residents and changes over a 20-year period. Community Dent Health 1996;13:238•44.
   Google Scholar
• Bjertness E. The importance of oral hygiene in variation indental caries in adults. Acta Odontol Scand 1992;50:193•200.
   Google Scholar
• Klausner LH, Green TG, Charbeneau GT. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations: a challenge for the profession. Oper Dent 1987;12:105•12.
   Google Scholar
• Friedl K-H, Hiller K-A, Schmalz G. Placement and replacement of composite restorations in Germany. Oper Dent 1995;20:34•8.
   Google Scholar
• Burke FJT, Cheung SW, Mjo� r IA, Wilson NHF. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 1999;30:234•42.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55: 58•68.
   Google Scholar
• Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjo� r IA. Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:297•303.
   Google Scholar
• Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjo� r IA. Placement and longevity of toothcolored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1990; 48:305•11.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA, Toffenetti F. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations in Italy. Oper Dent 1992;17: 70•3.
   Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Bader JD. Five-year treatment outcomes for teeth with large amalgams and crowns. Oper Dent 1997;22:72•8.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA, Wilson NHF. Teaching Class I and Class II direct composite restorations: results of a survey of dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;29: 1415•21.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson NHF, Mjo� r IA. The teaching of Class I and Class II direct composite restorations in European dental schools. J Dent 1999. p. in press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore DL, Stewart JL. Prevalence of defective restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1967;17:372•8.
   Google Scholar
• Elderton RJ. The causes of failure of restorations. A literature review. J Dent 1976;4:257•62.
   Google Scholar
• Svanberg M. Class II amalgam restorations, glass-ionomer tunnel restorations and caries development on adjacent tooth surfaces: a 3-year clinical study. Caries Res 1992;26:315•8.
   Google Scholar
• Qvist V, Laurberg L, Paulsen 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.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijken JWV, Kieri C, Carle�n M. Longevity of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glassionomer cement. J Dent Res 1999;78:1319•25.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson NHF, Burke FJT, Mjo� r IA. The reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorative materials in the UK. Quintessence Int 1996;28:245•8.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijken JWV, Sjo� stro�m S. Gingival reactions around and plaque formations on resin composites and glass-ionomer cements. Adv Dent Res 1995;9:363•6.
   Google Scholar
• Eichmiller FC, Marjenhoff WA. Fluoride-releasing dental restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998;23:218•28.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int. 1999. p. in press.
   Google Scholar
• Kakaboura A, Papagiannoulis L, Eliades G. In vivo vs in vitro anticariogenic potential of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent Res 1998;77:658 (abstract no. 209).
   Google Scholar
• Ku� nzel W. Trinkwasserfluoidierung Karl-Marx-Stadt. XIII. Mitteilung: Kariesru�ckgang und sanierung. Stomat DDR 1976; 26:458•65.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksen HM, Hansen BF, Bjerteness E, Berset GP. Oslounderso �kelsene: tannhelsen hos 35-a�ringene i Oslo. Endringer i et 20-a� rspespektiv. Nor Tannlegeforen Tid 1996;106: 732•5.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen GJ. Alternatives for the restoration of posterior teeth. Int Dent J 1989;39:155•61.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson EA. Dental fees increase 4.5% for the second straight year. Dent Econ 1994;84:37•48.
   Google Scholar
• Moffa JP. Comparative performance of amalgam and composite resin restorations and criteria for their use. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Quality evaluation of dental restorations. Chicago: Quintessence; 1989. p. 125•33.
   Google Scholar
• Mjo� r IA, Jokstad A, Qvist V. Longevity of posterior restorations. Int Dent J 1990;40: 11•7.
   Google Scholar
• Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictions of four types of dental restorative materials. J Dent 1991;19:278•82.
   Google Scholar