A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations

References

• Krejci I, Lutz F, Loher CE. Quantitative in vivo evaluation of four restorative concepts for mixed class V restorations. Quintessence Int 1991; 22: 455–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roulet JF. The problems associated with substituting composite resins for amalgam: a status report on posterior composites. J Dent 1988; 16: 101–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, VanHerle G. Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int 1993; 24: 641–58
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijken van JWV, Hörstedt P. In vivo adaptation of restorative materials to dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 56: 677–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brännström M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Operative Dent 1984; 9: 57–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLean JW, Powis DR, Prosser HJ, et al. The use of glass ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to dentine. Br Dent J 1985; 158: 410–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijken van JWV. The effect of cavity pretreatment procedures on dentin bonding: a four-year clinical evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 148–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krejci I, Sparr D, Lutz F. A three-sited light curing technique for conventional class II composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int 1987; 18: 125–31
   Google Scholar
• Airoldi RL, Krejci I, Lutz F. In vitro evaluation of dentinal bonding agents in mixed class V cavity preparations. Quintessence Int 1992; 23: 355–62
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. The importance of proximal curing in posterior composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int 1992; 23: 605–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mörmann W, Ameyes C, Lutz F. Komposit-Inlays: marginale Adaption, Porosität und occlusaler Verschließ. Dtsch Zahnaertzl Z 1982; 37: 438–43
   Google Scholar
• James DF. An esthetic inlay technique for posterior teeth. Quintessence Int 1983; 14: 1–7
   Google Scholar
• Marolf R, Roulet JF, Mörmann WH, Lutz F. Kompositinlays—Randqualität und Verschleiss nach 6 Monaten. Schweiz Mschr Zahnmed 1984; 94: 1215–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lopes LMP, Leitao JGM, Douglas WH. Effect of a new resin inlay/onlay restorative material on cuspal reinforcement. Quintessence Int 1991; 22: 641–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reinhardt K-J. Die extraorale Vergütung von komposit-Inlays. Dtsch Zahnaertzl Z 1991; 46: 342–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kildal KK, Ruyter IE. Degree of conversion in resin-based inlay materials [abstract 1621]. J Dent Res 1992; 71: 718
   Google Scholar
• Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Mechanical properties of heat treated restorative resins for use in the inlay/onlay technique. Scand J Dent Res 1990; 98: 564–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wendt SL, Jr. The effect of heat used as secondary cure upon the physical properties of the composite resins. I. Diametral tensile strength, compressive strength, and marginal dimensional stability. Quintessence Int 1987; 18: 265–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wendt SL, Jr. The effect of heat used as a secondary cure upon the physical properties of the composite resins. II. Wear, hardness and color stability. Quintessence Int 1987; 18: 351–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Post-cure heat treatments of composites: properties and fractography. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 290–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson PB, Moore BK, Swartz ML. Comparison of microleakage in direct and indirect composite resin restorations in vitro. Operative Dent 1987; 12: 113–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shortall AC, Baylis RL, Baylis MA, Grundy JR. Marginal seal comparisons between resin-based class II porcelain inlays, posterior composite restorations, and direct composite resin inlays. Int J Prosthod 1989; 2: 217–23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ciucchi B, Bouillaguet S, Holz J. Proximal adaptation and marginal seal of posterior composite resin restorations placed with direct and indirect techniques. Quintessence Int 1990; 21: 663–9
   Google Scholar
• Ruyter IE. Types of resin-based inlay materials and their properties. Int Dent J 1992; 42: 139–44
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijken van JWV. Kompositinlägg. Dentala kompositer, JWV Dijken van, SÅ Lundin, J Paulander. LIC förlag/Invest Odont, JönköpingNorway 1992; 90–4
   Google Scholar
• Hannig M, Albers HK. Kompositinlays aus SR-Isosit im klinischen kurszeittest. Dtsch Zahnaerztl Z 1990; 45: 236–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wendt SL, Jr. The clinical evaluation of heat-treated composite resin inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 1990; 120: 177–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christensen R, Christensen G, Vogl S, Bangerter U. Two year clinical comparison of 6 inlay systems [abstract 2360]. J Dent Res 1991; 70: 561
   Google Scholar
• Höglund Aberg C, Dijken van JWV, Olofsson A-L. Three-year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement. Acta Odontol Scand 1994; 52: 140–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijken van JWV. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller, and hybrid composite resin fillings. Acta Odontol Scand 1986; 44: 357–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987; 66: 1636–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Increased wall-to wall curing contraction in thin bonded resin layers. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 48–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peutzfeld A, Asmussen E. A comparison of accuracy in seating and gap formation for three inlay/onlay techniques. Operative Dent 1990; 15: 129–35
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reinhardt K-J, Smolka R. Kunststoffe im Sei-tenzahnbereich—Füllung oder Inlay?. Dtsch Zahnaertzl Z 1988; 43: 909–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Neal SJ, Leinfelder KF, Wright W, Gerbo L. Clinical evaluation of two types of composite resin inlay systems [abstract 1527]. J Dent Res 1991; 70: 457
   Google Scholar
• Pallesen U, Qvist V. Clinical evaluation of three resin materials for fillings and inlays: 2 year report [abstract 1626]. J Dent Res 1992; 71: 719
   Google Scholar
• Welbury RR, Murray JJ. A clinical trial of the glass ionomer cement-composite resin ‘sandwich’ technique in class II cavities in permanent premolar and molar teeth. Quintessence Int 1990; 21: 507–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knibbs P. The clinical performance of a glass polyalkenoat (glass ionomer) cement used in a ‘sandwich’ technique with a composite resin to restore class II cavities. Br Dent J 1992; 172: 102–7
   Google Scholar
• Wendt SL, Jr, Leinfelder HF. 3 year clinical evaluation of a resin composite inlay [abstract 627]. J Dent Res 1991; 70: 299
   Google Scholar
• Dionysopoulos P, Watts DC. Dynamic mechanical properties of an inlay composite. J Dent 1989; 17: 140–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Gee AJ, Pallav P, Werner A, Davidson CL. Annealing as a mechanism of increasing wear resistance of composites. Dental Mater 1991; 7: 11–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijken van JWV. A six year follow-up of three dental alloy restorations with different copper contents. Swed Dent J 1991; 15: 259–64
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dijken van JWV. A three year evaluation of Gluma and Gluma/Scotchbond for restoration of cervical erosions. Scand J Dent Res 1990; 64: 148–52
   Google Scholar
• Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Retention of composite inlays in enamel dentin cavities. Dent Miter 1991; 7: 11–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haller B, Klaiber B, Sechnus A. Randsluß zervikaler komposit Inlays in vitro. Dtsch Zahnacrztl Z 1990; 45: 296–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar