Literature DB >> 6935165

Clinical criteria.

G Ryge.   

Abstract

Criteria for the evaluation of the physical and chemical properties of dental materials have been available for many years. However, the final decision about the acceptability of a dental restorative material for use in the mouth can only come from clinical observation. This paper attempts to set out a systematic approach to the clinical assessment of restorative materials by posing a series of questions, to each of which an answer Yes or No can be given. The system makes provision for reaching decisions on marginal adaptation, restoration and preservation of anatomic form, protection against recurrence caries, and in the case of materials used in anterior restorations, colour match and cavo surface margin discoloration. Using these criteria, restorations can be classified into four categories: those within a range of excellence, those which although showing minor deviations from the ideal are nevertheless acceptable, those which should be replaced for preventive reasons to avoid the likelihood of future damage and those which require immediate replacement.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1980        PMID: 6935165

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Dent J        ISSN: 0020-6539            Impact factor:   2.512


  58 in total

1.  One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.

Authors:  Michael Rosin; Heike Steffen; Corinna Konschake; Uwe Greese; Dirk Teichmann; Axel Hartmann; Georg Meyer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Why we need a core outcome set for trials of interventions for prevention and management of caries.

Authors:  Thomas Lamont; Falk Schwendicke; Nicola Innes
Journal:  Evid Based Dent       Date:  2015-09

3.  Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials.

Authors:  Stephen C Bayne; Gottfried Schmalz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material.

Authors:  J F Schirrmeister; K Huber; E Hellwig; P Hahn
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite.

Authors:  Claus-Peter Ernst; Mathias Brandenbusch; Gerrit Meyer; Kerem Canbek; Franziska Gottschalk; Brita Willershausen
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities.

Authors:  Juergen Manhart; Hong-Yan Chen; Reinhard Hickel
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-11-08       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Oral health care for children in countries using dental therapists in public, school-based programs, contrasted with that of the United States, using dentists in a private practice model.

Authors:  Kavita R Mathu-Muju; Jay W Friedman; David A Nash
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  The 3.5-year survival rates of primary molars treated according to three treatment protocols: a controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Maite Mijan; Rodrigo Guedes de Amorim; Soraya Coelho Leal; Jan Mulder; Luciana Oliveira; Nico H J Creugers; Jo E Frencken
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 9.  Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries.

Authors:  Anirudha Agnihotry; Zbys Fedorowicz; Mona Nasser
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-03-08

10.  Pilot study of minimally invasive cast adhesive copings for early restoration of hypomineralised first permanent molars with post-eruptive breakdown.

Authors:  E Gaardmand; S Poulsen; D Haubek
Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent       Date:  2013-02-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.