Replacement reasons and service time of class-II amalgam restorations in relation to cavity design

References

• O'Hara J W, Clark LL. The evolution of the contemporary cavity preparation. J Am Dent Assoc 1984; 108: 993–7
   Google Scholar
• Robinson PB. The evolution of cavity shape for minimal amalgam restorations. Dent Update 1985; 12: 357–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hunter A R, Hunter AJ. The class II caries lesion. II. Alternative direct cavity preparations. NZ Dent J 1989; 85: 116–21
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morin D L, Douglas W H, Cross M, DeLong R. Biophysical stress analysis of restored teeth: experimental strain measurements. Dent Mater 1988; 4: 41–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nadal R, Phillips R W, Swartz ML. Clinical investigation on the relation of mercury to the amalgam restoration. II. J Am Dent Assoc 1961; 63: 488–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terkla L G, Mahler DB. Clinical evaluation of interproximal retention grooves in class II amalgam cavity design. J Prosthet Dent 1967; 17: 596–602
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terkla L G, Mahler D B, Van Eysden J. Analysis of amalgam cavity design. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 29: 204–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berry T G, Laswell H K, Osborne J W, Gale EN. Width of isthmus and marginal failure of restorations of amalgam. Oper Dent 1981; 6: 55–8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne J W, Gale EN. Failure at the margin of amalgams as affected by cavity width tooth position and alloys selection. J Dent Res 1981; 60: 681–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacRae P D, Zacherl W, Castaldi CR. A study of defects in class II dental amalgam restorations in deciduous molars. Can Dent Assoc J 1962; 28: 491–502
   Google Scholar
• Mathewson RJ. Determination of cavo-surface angles in primary molar cavity preparations. J South Calif Dent Assoc 1972; 40: 1062–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elderton RJ. An in vivo morphological study of cavity and amalgam margins on the occlusal surfaces of human teeth [Thesis]. University of London, London 1975
   Google Scholar
• Elderton RJ. Cavo-surface angles amalgam margin angles and occlusal cavity preparations. Br Dent J 1984; 156: 319–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Budtz-Jørgensen V. Gingival health and secondary caries adjacent to cervical restorations [Abstract 73]. IADR Program and Abstracts 1971
   Google Scholar
• Hammer B. Nachkontrolle von 1–5 jährige amalgam-, komposit- und goldgussfüllungen [Thesis]. University of Bern, Bern 1978
   Google Scholar
• Cavel W T, Kelsey W P, Blankenau RJ. An in vivo study of cuspal fracture. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53: 38–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eakle W S, Maxwell E H, Braly BV. Fractures of posterior teeth in adults. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 112: 215–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lang N P, Kiel R A, Anderhalden K. Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins. J Clin Periodontol 1983; 10: 563–78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markitziu A. A ten-year follow-up study of alveolar bone loss influenced by two dissimilar class II amalgam restorations. J Oral Rehabil 1987; 14: 23–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meyer S. Approximalpräparation und parodon-talprophylaxe. Eine klinische studie. Dtsch Zahnaerztl Z 1988; 43: 300–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thomas AE. Evaluation of principles of cavity preparation design. Ala J Med Sci 1970; 20: 379–82
   Google Scholar
• Bailit H L, Chiriboga D, Grasso J. A new intermediate dental outcome measure amalgam replacement rate. Med Care 1979; 17: 780–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elderton R J, Nuttall NM. Variation among dentists in planning treatment. Br Dent J 1983; 154: 210–6
   Google Scholar
• Boyd MA. Amalgam replacements: are decisions based on fact or tradition. Quality evaluation of dental restorations: Criteria for placement and replacement, KJ Anusavive. Quintessence Publ Co, Chicago 1989; 73–82
   Google Scholar
• Report of the committee of enquiry into unnecessary dental treatment. Department of Health and Social Security, London 1986
   Google Scholar
• Jokstad A, Mjör IA. The quality of routine class II cavity preparations for amalgam. Acta Odontol Scand 1989; 47: 53–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokstad A. The dimensions of everyday class-II cavity preparations for amalgam. Acta Odontol Scand 1989; 47: 89–99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokstad A, Mjör IA. Cavity designs for class II amalgam restorations. A literature review and a suggested system for evaluation. Acta Odontol Scand 1987; 45: 257–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cvar J F, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Government Printing Office, San Francisco 1971, USPHS publication 790–244
   Google Scholar
• Johansson B, Mjör IA. Marginal degradation and corrosion of a dispersed high copper amalgam. Scand J Dent Res 1988; 96: 75–82
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jokstad A, Mjör IA. Cavity design and marginal degradation of the occlusal part of class-II amalgam restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1990; 48: 389–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokstad A, Mjör IA. Analyses of long-term clinical behavior of class-II amalgam restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1991; 49: 47–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlos JP. Tricks and traps in dental clinical trials. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1985; 13: 79–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Letzel H, Van't Hof M A, Vrijhoef M M, Marshall GW, Jr., Marshall SJ. A controlled clinical study of amalgam restorations: survival, failures, and causes of failure. Dent Mater 1989; 5: 115–21
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goepferd S J, Kerber PE. A comparison of two methods for evaluating primary class II cavity preparations. J Dent Educ 1980; 44: 537–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lachenbruch PA. Discriminant analysis. Hafner Press, New York 1975
   Google Scholar
• Wastell D G, Gray RJ. The numerical approach to classification: a medical application to develop a topology for facial pain. Stat Med 1987; 6: 137–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abernathy J R, Graves R C, Bohannan H M, Stamm J W, Greenberg B G, Disney JA. Development and application of a prediction model for dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1987; 15: 24–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader J D, Graves R C, Disney J A. Identifying children who will experience high caries increments. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1986; 14: 198–201
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sterne JA. Application of statistical modelling to peridontal diseases as viewed by the statistician. Periodontology today, B Guggenheim. Karger, Basel 1988; 86–94
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert ES. On discrimination using qualitative variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1968; 63: 1399–1412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatsuoka MM. Multivariate analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York 1971
   Google Scholar
• ADA, FDA, NIH. Clinical evaluation of dental materials, HD Wychoff, DG Weigl. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda 1980, publication no. 80–117
   Google Scholar
• FDI, Federation Dentaire Internationale. Recommendations for clinical research protocols for dental materials. Inter Dent J 1982; 32: 403–23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anusavice KJ. Criteria for selection of restorative materials: Properties versus technique sensitivity. Quality evaluation of dental restorations, KJ Anusavice. Quintessence Publ Co, Chicago 1989
   Google Scholar
• Boyde A, Knight PJ. SEM studies of class II cavity margins. Matrix band application. Br Dent J 1972; 133: 331–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Øilo G. Adaptation of amalgams to cavity walls. J Oral Rehabil 1976; 3: 227–36
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mjör I. A. Frequency of secondary caries at various anatomical locations. Oper Dent 1985; 10: 88–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tronstad L, Leidal I. Scanning electron microscopy of cavity margins finished with chisels or rotating instruments at low speed. J Dent Res 1974; 53: 1167–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins JW. The placement of bases beneath amalgam restorations: review of literature and recommendations for use. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 113: 910–2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar