Literature DB >> 9805435

Selection of restorative materials, reasons for replacement, and longevity of restorations in Florida.

I A Mjör1, J E Moorhead.   

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to obtain information relating to the types of restorative materials used, the main reason for replacement of restorations, and the age of failed restorations. Dentists in general dental practice in Florida were invited to record details from their own work pertaining to restorations. The diagnostic criteria were described and coded. The clinicians were not calibrated in the use of the criteria but they could call in for further explanation if needed. The 27 clinicians involved placed 2,035 restorations of which 53% were replacements of failed restorations. The increased use of resin based restorative material was clearly evident including posterior composites. The clinical diagnosis secondary caries was the most common reason for replacement of amalgam (56%) and composite (59%) restorations. Only discoloration showed a statistically significant difference in the reason for replacement of the two types of materials. The median age of the replaced amalgam restoration was 15 years and that of composite restoration was 8 years.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9805435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Dent        ISSN: 0002-7979


  10 in total

1.  Effect of Different Powers of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Treatment on Surface Morphology of Microhybride Composite Resin: Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Evaluation.

Authors:  Mansore Mirzaei; Esmaeil Yasini; Atefeh Tavakoli; Nasim Chiniforush
Journal:  J Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2015

2.  Four-year outcomes of restored posterior tooth surfaces-a massive data analysis.

Authors:  Michael Raedel; Andrea Hartmann; Steffen Bohm; Heinz-Werner Priess; Stefanie Samietz; Ioannis Konstantinidis; Michael H Walter
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Surface treatment comparison by application of diamond bur and Er,Cr:YSGG at different powers: morphological and mechanical evaluation.

Authors:  Mansoreh Mirzaie; Esmael Yassini; Ardavan Etemadi; Atefeh Tavakoli; Nasim Chiniforush
Journal:  Laser Ther       Date:  2016-10-01

4.  Restorative material and other tooth-specific variables associated with the decision to repair or replace defective restorations: findings from The Dental PBRN.

Authors:  Valeria V Gordan; Joseph L Riley; Donald C Worley; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Association between caries location and restorative material treatment provided.

Authors:  Erinne B Lubisich; Thomas J Hilton; Jack L Ferracane; Hristina I Pashova; Bruce Burton
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2011-01-21       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Practices participating in a dental PBRN have substantial and advantageous diversity even though as a group they have much in common with dentists at large.

Authors:  Sonia K Makhija; Gregg H Gilbert; D Brad Rindal; Paul Benjamin; Joshua S Richman; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Vibeke Qvist
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 2.757

7.  Novel F-releasing composite with improved mechanical properties.

Authors:  L Ling; X Xu; G-Y Choi; D Billodeaux; G Guo; R M Diwan
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 6.116

Review 8.  Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials.

Authors:  J L Drummond
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 6.116

Review 9.  Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations.

Authors:  Igor Robert Blum; Mutlu Özcan
Journal:  Curr Oral Health Rep       Date:  2018-09-15

10.  The Post-Amalgam Era: Norwegian Dentists' Experiences with Composite Resins and Repair of Defective Amalgam Restorations.

Authors:  Simen E Kopperud; Frode Staxrud; Ivar Espelid; Anne Bjørg Tveit
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 3.390

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.