Assessment of marginal degradation of restorations on impressions

References

• Osborne JW, Phillips RW, Gale EN, Binon PP. Three-year clinical comparison of three amalgam alloy types emphasizing an appraisal of the evaluation methods used. J Am Dent Assoc 1976; 93: 784–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahler DB, Terkla LG, Eysden Van J. Marginal fracture of amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 1973; 52: 823–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smales RJ. Evaluation of clinical methods for assessing restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 49: 67–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santucci EA, Racz WB, Norman RD. A new method for evaluating posterior composite restorations. IADR program and abstracts 1979
   Google Scholar
• Mitchem JC. Correlation of laboratory testing to three-year clinical behavior of silicate cements. J Prosthet Dent 1972; 27: 172–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richter WA, Mahler DB. Physical properties vs clinical performance of pure gold restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1973; 29: 434
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mjor IA, Ryge G. Comparison of techniques for the evaluation of marginal adaptation of amalgam restorations. Int Dent J 1981; 31: 1–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smales RJ, Creaven PJ. Evaluation of clinical methods for assessing the surface roughness of restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42: 45–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahler DB, Van Eysden J. Occlusal extrusion of clinical amalgam restorations. IADR program and abstracts 1974
   Google Scholar
• Lutz F, Imfeld T, Meier C, Firestone AR. Composite vs amalgam. Comparative measurements of in vivo wear resistance. 1 year report. Quintessence Int 1979; 10: 77–87
   Google Scholar
• Eick JD, Ortman LF, Allen TB, McGivern RF. General clinical application of stereo-camera system. IADR program and abstracts 1973
   Google Scholar
• Elderton RJ. An objective method for measuring the surface morphology of cavities and restorations in vivo. J Oral Rehabil 1977; 4: 323–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller BH, Marker VA, Spears R, Okabe T. Comparison of methods to evaluate breakdown in amalgam. IADR program and abstracts 1988
   Google Scholar
• FDI, Federation Dentaire Internationale. Recommendations for clinical research protocols for dental materials. Int Dent J 1982; 32: 403–23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baume LJ, Prejean F, Holz J. Les possibilites ďune normalisation des essais cliniques concernant les produits ďobturation dentaire. SSO 1976; 86: 607–29
   Google Scholar
• Leinfelder KF. Methodological aspects of clinical research. In: Transactions of the international symposium on operative dentistry. University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen 1975; 87–103
   Google Scholar
• Jacobsen PH. The clinical evaluation of amalgam alloys. Br Dent J 1984; 157: 436–39
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matsuda N. Marginal fracture of amalgam restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1970; 23: 658–61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herr P, Ciucchi B, Holz J, Baume LJ. Methode de positionnement de repliques destinee au controle clinique des materiaux ďobturation. J Biol Buccale 1981; 9: 17–26
   Google Scholar
• Smales RJ, Creaven PJ. Evaluation of three clinical methods for assessing amalgam and resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 54: 340–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eick JD, Ryge G, Tonn EM, Jendresen MD. Comparison of clinical evaluation method for amalgam IADR program and abstracts 1983
   Google Scholar
• Bates JF, Douglas WH. A two-year field trial of a disperse phase alloy. Br Dent J 1980; 149: 133–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roulet JF, Reich T, Blunck U, Noack M. Quantitative margin analysis in the scanning electron microscope. Scanning Microsc 1989; 3: 147–59
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davies NE, Tranter T, Whitten JR. Evaluation of fissure sealant durability in vivo using an impression technique. J Dent 1975; 3: 153–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knibbs PJ, Plant CG, Shovelton DS, Jones PA. an evaluation of a lathe-cut high-copper amalgam alloy. J Oral Rehabil 1987; 14: 465–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pameijer CH. Replica techniques for scanning electron microscopy–a review. Scan Electron Microsc 1978; 2: 831–4
   Google Scholar
• Barnes IE. Replication techniques for the scanning electron microscope. 1. History, materials and techniques. J Dent 1978; 6: 327–41
   Google Scholar
• Scott EC. Replica production for SEM. A test of materials suitable for use in field settings. J Microsc 1982; 125: 337–341
   Google Scholar
• Ekfeldt A, Flöystrand F, Öilo G. Replica techniques for in vivo studies of tooth surfaces and prosthetic materials. Scand J Dent Res 1985; 93: 560–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barnes IE. Replication techniques for the scanning electron microscope. 2. Clinical and laboratory procedures: interpretation. J Dent 1979; 1: 25–37
   Google Scholar
• NIDR, National institute of dental research. Challenges for the eighties National institute of dental research long range research plan. FY 1985–89
   Google Scholar
• Greener EH. Amalgam: Reactor response. Adv Dent Res 1988; 2: 83–86
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Møller IJ. The implementation of field trials. J Dent Res 1977; 56C
   Google Scholar
• Pameijer CH. Replica techniques. Principles and techniques of scanning electron microscopy. Biological applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, New York 1974; Vol. 4: 45–92
   Google Scholar
• Kusy RP, Leinfelder C. In situ replication techniques. 1. Preliminary screening and the negative replication technique. J Dent Res 1977; 56: 925–32
   Google Scholar
• Pameijer CH. Replication techniques with new dental impression materials in combination with different negative impression materials. Scan Electron Microsc 1979; 2: 571–4
   Google Scholar
• Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC 1971
   Google Scholar
• Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. Statistical methods for rates and proportions 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York 1981; 211–36
   Google Scholar
• Roulet JF. Die Prufung des Randschlusses soge-nannt schnitzbarer Komposits. SSO 1978; 88: 345–64
   Google Scholar
• Tomita Y, Okuda R, Wakumoto S. Replica technique for scanning electron microscope examination of occlusal amalgam margins. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 41: 299–303
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips RW. Skinner's science of dental materials 7th ed. W.B. Saunders Co, Philadelphia 1978
   Google Scholar
• Vossen M, Letzel H, Stadhouders AM, Hertel R, Hendriks FH. A rapid SEM replication technique for clinical studies of dental restorations. Dent Mater 1985; 1: 158–63
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marcinak CF, Draughn RA. Linear dimensional changes in addition curing silicone impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47: 411
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marker VA, Staman JW, Okabe T, Frederick K. Replication technique for high magnification resolution. IADR program and abstracts 1984
   Google Scholar
• Marker VA, Nelson P, Filler WH, Okabe T. Variables affecting the quality of replicas for clinical investigations. IADR program and abstracts 1987
   Google Scholar
• Lambrechts P, Vanherle C. A universal and accurate replica technique for SEM study in clinical dentistry. Microsc Acta 1981; 85: 45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Vuylsteke M, Davidson CL. Quantitative evaluation of the wear resistance of posterior dental restorations: a new three dimensional measuring technique. J Dent 1984; 12: 252–67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Atkinson JT, Groves D, Lalor MJ, Cunningham J, Williams DF. The measurement of wear in dental restorations using laser dual-source contouring. Wear 1982; 76: 91–104
   Google Scholar
• Fukushima M, Setcos JC, Phillips RW. Marginal fracture of posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1988; 117: 577–583
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfefferkorn G, Boydc A. Review of replica techniques for scanning electron microscopy. Scan Electron Microsc 1974; 1: 75–82
   Google Scholar
• Hunt RJ. Percent agreement, Pearson's correlation, and Kappa as measures of inter-examiner reliability. J Dent Res 1986; 65: 128–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lugassy AA, Moffa JP. Laboratory model for the quantification of clinical occlusal wear. IADR program and abstracts 1985
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg AJ, Rydinge E, Santucci EA, Racz WB. Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res 1984; 63: 1387–91
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mjor IA, Haugen E. Clinical evaluation of amalgam restorations. Scand J Dent Res 1976; 84: 333–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elderton RJ. Assessment of the quality of restorations. J Oral Rehabil 1977; 4: 217–26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryge G, Tonn EM, Eick JD, Jendresen MD. Evaluation of clinical behavior of six dental amalgams. IADR program and abstracts 1983
   Google Scholar
• Bryant RW, Mahler DB, Engle JH. A comparison of methods for evaluating the marginal fracture of amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 1985; 1: 235–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mahler DB, Engle JH, Bryant RW. Standardized evaluations of the clinical marginal fracture of amalgam. J Dent Res 1986; 65: 1108–11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar