Download PDF
ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2003; 112(4): 142-155
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-38827
Wissenschaft
Zahnerhaltung
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Überlebenszeitanalyse von konservierend-zahnärztlichen Restaurationen - Teil I: Direkte Füllungen aus Komposit und Kompomer im Seitenzahnbereich

Longevity of dental restorations. - Part I: Direct composite and compomer restorations in stress-bearing posterior teethJ. Manhart1 , H. Y. Chen1 , R. Hickel1
  • 1München
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 April 2003 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel analysiert die in der zahnärztlichen Fachliteratur publizierten klinischen Studien zu plastischen Kompositfüllungen, Füllungen mit Inserts und Kompomerfüllungen in Klasse-I- und -II-Kavitäten in Bezug auf Überlebenszeiten der Restaurationen und Faktoren, welche die Verweildauer im Mund begünstigen bzw. ein Risiko für frühzeitigen Füllungsverlust darstellen.

Summary

This article analyzes clinical studies on direct composite restorations with and without inserts and on compomer restorations in stress-bearing class I and class II cavities with regard to longevity. Reasons for early restoration failure are discussed as well as factors which promote restoration success.

Schlüsselwörter

Überlebenszeitanalyse - Komposit, Kompomer - Insert - Risikofaktoren

Key Words

Longevity - Composite - Compomer - Insert - Risc Factors

Literatur

  • 1 Baratieri N L, Ritter V A. Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique.  J Esthet Dent. 2001;  13 50-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barnes M D, Blank W L, Thompson P V, Holston M A, Gingell C J. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin.  Quintessence Int. 1991;  22 143-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Benz C, Stabel W, Mehl A, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of modified glass ionomers in class II restorations.  J Dent Res. 1997;  76 165
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Braun R A, Frankenberger R, Krämer N. Clinical performance and margin analysis of Ariston pHc versus Solitaire I as posterior restorations after 1 year.  Clin Oral Invest. 2001;  5 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Buchalla W, Attin T, Hellwig E. Influence of dentin conditioning on bond strength of light-cured ionomer restorative materials and polyacid-modified composite resins.  Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 1996;  7 81-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Buchalla W, Attin T, Hellwig E. Einfluß der Schmelzätztechnik auf die Haftung von Kompomer-Füllungsmaterialien.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1997;  52 463-466
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Burke T F J, Cheung W S, Mjör A I, Wilson F N H. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom.  Quintessence Int. 1999;  30 234-242
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Burke T F J, Qualtrough E A J. Aesthetic inlays: composite or ceramic.  Br Dent J. 1994;  176 53-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Busato S A L, Loguercio D A, Reis A, De Oliveira  R Carrilho M. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.  Am J Dent. 2001;  14 304-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cortes O, Garcia-Godoy F, Boj R J. Bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching.  Am J Dent. 1993;  6 299-301
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Crabb M H S. The survival of dental restorations in a teaching hospital.  Br Dent J. 1981;  150 315-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Demirci M, Ücok M. Two-year clinical evaluation of Dyract in small class I cavities.  Am J Dent. 2002;  15 312-316
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Donly J K, Jensen E M, Triolo P, Chan D. A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years.  Quintessence Int. 1999;  30 163-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dunn R J, Munoz A C, Bernal G, Torres J, Wilson A. Clinical evaluation of Heliomolar HB for posterior restorations.  Trans Acad Dent Mat. 2001;  15 186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 el-Mowafy M O, Lewis W D, Benmergui C, Levinton C. Meta-analysis on longterm clinical performance of posterior composite restorations.  J Dent. 1994;  22 33-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ernst C-P, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years.  Clin Oral Invest. 2001;  5 148-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Flessa P H, Kunzelmann H K, Mehl A, Hickel R. Quantitative 3D wear analysis of composite fillings with and without inserts.  J Dent Res. 1999;  78 309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Freilich A M, Goldberg J A, Gilpatrick O R, Simonsen J R. Direct and indirect evaluation of posterior composite restorations at three years.  Dent Mater. 1992;  8 60-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: The 10-year report.  J Adhesive Dent. 2001;  3 185-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Geurtsen W, Schoeler U. A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class I and Class II composite restorations.  J Dent. 1997;  25 229-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Guggenberger R, Weinmann W. Exploring beyond methacrylates.  Am J Dent. 2000;  13 82-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Haller B, Moll K, Hofmann N, Klaiber B. Initiale Scherhaftfestigkeit von Glasionomer-Komposit-Hybridmaterialien an konditioniertem und unkonditioniertem Schmelz.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1997;  52 680-684
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Helbig B E, Klimm W, Haufe E, Richter G. Klinische Fünfjahresstudie zum Feinpartikelhybrid P-50 in Kombination mit Scotchbond 2.  Acta Med Dent Helv. 1998;  3 171-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hickel R. Moderne Füllungswerkstoffe.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1997;  52 572-585
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials.  Int Dent J. 1998;  48 3-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hickel R, Kunzelmann H K. Keramikinlays und Veneers.  1997; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hickel R, Manhart J. Glass-ionomers and compomers in pediatric dentistry.  1999;  201-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hickel R, Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations.  Am J Dent. 2000;  13 41-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hugo B, Otto A, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Klaiber B. Retrospektive In-vivo-Untersuchung von Sonicsys-approx-Füllungen.  Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2001;  111 152-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hugo B, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Hausmann P, Klaiber B. In-vivo-Untersuchung von kleinen Klasse-II-Kompositfüllungen.  Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2001;  111 11-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Huth K, Manhart J, Kunzelmann H K, Hickel R. Clinical performance of a compomer in stress-bearing cavities of permanent posterior teeth. Results after 3 years.  Am J Dent; zur Publikation angenommen. 2001; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Huth K, Selbertinger S, Kunzelmann H K, Hickel R. Compomer for class I/II restorations - results after 6 months.  J Dent Res. 1999;  78 285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ishikawa A, Katsuyama S, Tani Y. Wear resistance of composite resins inserted with glass-ceramic inserts.  J Dent Res. 1994;  73 326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Jedynakiewicz M N, Martin N, Fletcher M J. A clinical evaluation of a posterior compomer restorative at 3 years.  J Dent Res. 2002;  81 52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jokstad A, Bayne C S, Blunck U, Tyas M, Wilson F N H. Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission Project 2-95.  Int Dent J. 2001;  51 117-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Jokstad A, Mjör A I, Qvist V. The age of restorations in situ.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1994;  52 234-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kawai K, Leinfelder F K. Effect of glass inserts on resin composite wear.  Am J Dent. 1995;  8 249-252
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kelsey P W, Latta A M, Shaddy S R, Stanislav M C. Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials.  Oper Dent. 2000;  25 331-335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kiremitci A, Bolay S, Gurgan S. Two-year performance of glass-ceramic insert-resin composite restorations: clinical and scanning electron microscopic evaluation.  Quintessence Int. 1998;  29 417-421
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kontou E, Frankenberger R, Klinge S, Krämer N. Clinical performance of two compomer materials - six months follow-up.  J Dent Res. 1999;  78 391
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Köhler B, Rasmusson C-G, Ödman P. A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations.  J Dent. 2000;  28 111-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kreulen M C, Tobi H, Gruythuysen M R J, van Amerongen E W, Borgmeijer J P. Replacement risk of amalgam treatment modalities: 15-year results.  J Dent. 1998;  26 627-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kunzelmann H K, Manhart J. Plastische Kompositfüllungen mit Sonicsys-Approx-Inserts.  Ästhetische Zahnmedizin. 2000;  3 34-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Kunzelmann H K, Obermeier T, Mehl A, Hickel R. Finite element analysis of megafillers/inserts to optimize shape and material properties.  J Dent Res. 1995;  74 187
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Klinische Erfahrungen mit Composites und Dentin-Adhäsiven im Seitenzahnbereich I: Klinische Beurteilung von Composites.  Phillip J. 1988;  1 12-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Latta A M, Randall J C. Physical properties of compomer restorative materials.  J Dent Res. 1999;  78 157
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Leempoel B P J, van-'t-Hof A M, De Haan F A. Survival analysis studies of dental restorations: criteria, methods and an analysis.  J Oral Rehabil. 1989;  16 387-394
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Leinfelder F K, Sluder B T, Santos F J F, Wall T J. Five-year clinical evaluation of anterior and posterior restorations of composite resins.  Oper Dent. 1980;  5 57-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations in multicentre clinical trial.  J Dent. 1989;  17 10-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Loguercio D A, Reis A, Rodrigues E Filho L, Busato S A L. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations.  Oper Dent. 2001;  26 427-434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Lopes G L, Cefaly G D F, Franco B E, Mondelli L R F, Lauris P J R, Navarro L M F. Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins.  Clin Oral Invest. 2002;  6 83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Lösche M G. Klasse-II-Kompositfüllungen mit und ohne konfektionierte Glaskeramik-Inserts. Eine In-vivo-Studie.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1996;  51 389-394
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lundin A S, Koch G. Class I and II composite resin restorations: 4-year clinical follow up.  Swed Dent J. 1989;  13 217-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Lundin A S, Koch G. Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years.  Swed Dent J. 1999;  23 165-171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Luo Y, Lo M E C, Fang S D T, Wei Y S H. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: One-year results.  Quintessence Int. 2000;  31 630-636
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Lussi A, Schaffner M, Suter P, Hotz P. Toxikologie der Amalgame.  Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 1989;  99 55-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Lutz F, Phillips W R, Roulet F J, Setcos C J. In vivo and in vitro wear of potential posterior composites.  J Dent Res. 1984;  63 914-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Mackert R J. Dental amalgam and mercury.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1991;  122 54-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Mair H L. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.  Quintessence Int. 1998;  29 483-490
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Manhart J, Chen Y H, Spoerlein F, Hickel R. 2-year clinical evaluation of Definite ormocer-restorations in posterior teeth.  J Dent Res. 2002;  81 80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Manhart J, Chen Y H, Spoerlein F, Hickel R. 2-year clinical evaluation of Definite ormocer-restorations in posterior teeth.  J Dent Res. 2002;  81 80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Manhart J, Glomb C, Stueckgen D, Neuerer P, Flessa H-P, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching adhesive at 2 years.  J Dent Res. 2002;  81 233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Manhart J, Hickel R. Klinische Studie zum Einsatz eines All-in-one-Adhäsivs.  Erste Ergebnisse nach 6 Monaten. Quintessenz. 1999;  50 1277-1288
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Manhart J, Hickel R. Okklusale Compomerversorgungen mit einem selbstätzenden Adhäsiv.  Phillip J. 1999;  16 76-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Manhart J, Hickel R. Longevity of restorations.  2001;  237-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Manhart J, Hollwich B, Mehl A, Kunzelmann H K, Hickel R. Randqualität von Ormocer- und Kompositfüllungen in Klasse-II-Kavitäten nach künstlicher Alterung.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1999;  54 89-95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Manhart J, Kunzelmann H K, Chen Y H, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins.  Dent Mater. 2000;  16 33-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Manhart J, Li D, Powers M J, Hickel R. Bond strength of VLC GICs, compomers, and composites.  Trans Acad Dent Mat. 1998;  12 236
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Manhart J, Li D, Powers M J, Hickel R. Bonding of compomers to deep dentin under various surface conditions.  J Dent Res. 1998;  77 787
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.  J Prosthet Dent. 2000;  84 289-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.  J Prosthet Dent. 2000;  84 289-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Mertz-Fairhurst J E, Curtis-JW J, Ergle W J, Rueggeberg A F, Adair M S. Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;  129 55-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Mjör A I. Amalgam and composite resin resin restorations: longevity and reasons for replacement.  1989;  1st 61-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Mjör A I. Problems and benefits associated with restorative materials: side-effects and long-term cost.  Adv Dent Res. 1992;  6 7-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Mjör A I. Glass ionomer restorations and secondary caries. A preliminary report.  Quintessence Int. 1996;  27 171-174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Mjör A I. Selection of restorative materials in general dental practice in Sweden.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1997;  55 53-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Mjör A I. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1997;  55 58-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Mjör A I, Jokstad A. Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment and resin-based composite materials.  J Dent. 1993;  21 338-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Mjör A I, Jokstad A, Qvist V. Longevity of posterior restorations.  Int Dent J. 1990;  40 11-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Mjör A I, Toffenetti F. Placement and replacement of resin-based composite restorations in Italy.  Oper Dent. 1992;  17 82-85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Moffa P J. Comparative performance of amalgam and composite resin restorations and criteria for their use.  1989;  125-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Mörmann W, Brandestini M. Die Cerec Computer Rekonstruktion.  Inlays, Onlays und Veneers. 1989; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Nordbo H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr R F. Schüsselförmige Kavitätenpräparation für approximale Kompositrestaurationen im Seitenzahnbereich - Beobachtungen bis zu 10 Jahren.  Quintessenz. 1998;  49 773-779
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Norris C, Burgess O J. Polymerization shrinkage of seventeen composite resins.  J Dent Res. 2002;  81 424
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Oberländer H, Hiller A K, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations.  Clin Oral Investig. 2001;  5 102-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Ödman P. A 3-year clinical evaluation of Cerana prefabricated ceramic inserts.  Int J Prosthodont. 2002;  15 79-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Paterson N. The longevity of restorations.  Br Dent J. 1984;  157 23-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Pelka M. Haltbarkeit von Füllungen aus verschiedenen Materialien.  Zahnärztl Mitteilungen. 1998;  88 42-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Powers M J, Farah W J. Compomers.  The Dental Advisor. 1998;  15 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Puckett D A, Smith R. Method to measure the polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composites.  J Prosthet Dent. 1992;  68 56-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjör A I. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;  48 305-311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Raskin A, Michotte-Theall B, Vreven J, Wilson F N H. Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report.  J Dent. 1999;  27 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Raskin A, Setcos C J, Vreven J, Wilson F N H. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations.  Clin Oral Invest. 2000;  4 148-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Rosin M, Hartmann A, Konschake C, Greese U, Schwahn B, Meyer G. A clinical evaluation of a new ormocer restorative at 6 months.  J Dent Res. 1999;  78 285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Roulet F J. The problems associated with substituting composite resins for amalgam: a status report on posterior composites.  J Dent. 1988;  16 101-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Roulet F J. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam.  J Dent. 1997;  25 459-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Rykke M. Dental materials for posterior restorations.  Endod Dent Traumatol. 1992;  8 139-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann H K, Hickel R. Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.  J Prosthet Dent. 1999;  82 391-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Schiele R. Die Amalgamfüllung - Verträglichkeit.  Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1991;  46 515-518
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Sjögren G, Hedlund O S, Jonsson C, Sandström A. A 3-year follow-up study of preformed bet-quartz glass-ceramic insert restorations.  Quintessence Int. 2000;  31 25-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Smales J R, Gerke C D, White L I. Clinical evaluation of occlusal glass ionomer, resin, and amalgam restorations.  J Dent. 1990;  18 243-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Smales J R, Webster A D, Leppard I P. Survival predictions of four types of dental restorative materials.  J Dent. 1991;  19 278-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Svanberg M, Mjör A I, Orstavik D. Mutans streptococci in plaque from margins in amalgam, composite and glass ionomer restorations.  J Dent Res. 1990;  69 861-864
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Türkün S L, Aktener O B. Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials.  J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;  132 196-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 van Dijken V J W. Three-year performance of a calcium-, fluoride-, and hydroxyl-ions-releasing composite.  Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;  60 155-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Vilkinis V, Hörsted-Bindslev P, Baelum V. Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass-ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations.  Clin Oral Invest. 2000;  4 133-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Wassell W R, Walls G A W, McCabe F J. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results.  Br Dent J. 1995;  179 343-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Wassell W R, Walls G A W, McCabe F J. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.  J Dent. 2000;  28 375-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Welbury R R, Walls W A, Murray J J, McCabe F J. The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration.  Br Dent J. 1990;  169 361-366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Wilder D A, May N K, Bayne C S, Taylor F D, Leinfelder F K. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite class I and II restorations.  J Esthet Dent. 1999;  11 135-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Wilson A M, Cowan J A, Randall C R, Crisp J R, Wilson F N H. A practice-based randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: One-year results.  Oper Dent. 2002;  27 423-429
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Wilson A M, Wilson F N H, Smith A G. A clinical trial of a visible light-cured posterior composite resin restorative: two-year results.  Quintessence Int. 1986;  17 151-155
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Wilson F N H, Burke T F J, Mjör A I. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations of direct restorative materials by a selected group of practitioners in the United Kingdom.  Quintess Int. 1997;  28 245-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Wilson F N H, Cowan J A, Unterbrink G, Wilson A M, Crisp J R. A clinical evaluation of class II composites placed using a decoupling technique.  J Adhesive Dent. 2000;  2 319-329
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Wilson F N H, Smith A G, Wilson A M. A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative material: three-year results.  Quintessence Int. 1986;  17 643-652
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Wilson F N H, Wilson A M, Smith A G. A clinical trial of a new visible light-cured posterior composite restorative - initial findings and one-year results.  Quintessence Int. 1985;  16 281-290
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Wilson F N H, Wilson A M, Smith A G. A clinical trial of a visible light-cured posterior composite resin restorative material: four-year results.  Quintessence Int. 1987;  19 133-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Wilson F N H, Wilson A M, Wastell G D, Smith A G. A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative material: five-year results.  Quintessence Int. 1988;  19 675-681
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Wucher M, Grobler R S, Senekal C P J. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.  Am J Dent. 2002;  15 274-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Korrespondenzadresse

OA Dr. J. Manhart

Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltung und Parodontologie

Goethestraße 70, 80336 München

Fax: 089/5160-5344

Email: manhart@manhart.com

URL: http://www.manhart.com

      >