Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in class II restorations in primary molar. A three year clinical evaluation, Swed Dent J, vol.16, pp.81-86, 1992. ,
A) de 3 ans : restaurations de classe II amalgame, composite et CVI (Chelfil) Taux d'échecs annuels amalgames, 3%) / CVI (20%) ,
Longevity and Cariostatic Effects of Everyday Conventional Glass-ionomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Teeth: Three-year Results, Journal of Dental Research, vol.76, issue.7, pp.1387-1396, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.1177/00220345970760070901
Clinical evaluation and marginal leakage of Amalgambond Plus: Three-years results ,
CLINICAL PERFORMANCE AND CARIES INHIBITION OF RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.130, issue.10, pp.1459-1466, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056
A) de 3 ans : restaurations de classe II (40) Taux d'échecs annuels des amalgames, 8%) versus CVIMAR Vitremer, p.9 ,
Dyract versus Tytin Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: 36 Months Evaluation, Caries Research, vol.33, issue.5, pp.387-392, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000016538
B1) de 3 ans : restaurations de classe II (30) Taux d'échecs annuels des amalgames, 9%) versus compomères Dyract (2%) ,
Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children, ASDC J Dent Child, vol.66, pp.93-97, 1999. ,
Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation, British Dental Journal, vol.128, issue.6, pp.339-342, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560
année de publication ; pour les classes I, ils variaient de 13, ) et pour les classes II, de 13,4 à 7,6%. Ils dépendaient également de l'âge de l'enfant (par ex moins de 2 ans chez enfants de moins de 4 ans, 1971. ,
mais deux d'entre elles intéressaient les classes III Toutes études confondues, les taux d'échecs variaient de 0 à 17% pour les classe I et de 0,8 à 25,8% pour les classe II ; et en ne considérant que les études contrôlées randomisées ou non ,
The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration, British Dental Journal, vol.170, issue.5, pp.177-181, 1991. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807465
Tunnel restorations. A 3 ½ -year follow up study of class I and II tunnel restorations in permanent and primary teeth, Swed Dent J, vol.17, pp.173-182, 1993. ,
The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial, British Dental Journal, vol.179, issue.5, pp.175-179, 1995. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808867
A) de 2,5 ans : restaurations de classe II. Taux d'échecs annuels, Cermet Ketac Silver CVI Ketac Fil, vol.16, issue.9, p.2 ,
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary molars, Swed Dent J, vol.23, pp.1-9, 1999. ,
clinical behavior of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth, JDent, vol.27, pp.437-442, 1999. ,
A) de 2,5 ans : restaurations de classe II, Taux d'échecs annuels CVIMAR Vitremer (0,8%) versus cermet Ketac silver, p.6 ,
Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primay molars: Final results after 42 months, Br Dent J, vol.189, pp.93-97, 2000. ,
A) de 3,5 ans : restaurations de classes I et II. Taux d'échecs annuels CVI Chemfil supérieur, 4%) versus compomères Dyract, p.6 ,
Clinical performance of a condensable metal-reinforced glass ionomer cement in primary molars, British Dental Journal, vol.190, issue.6, pp.317-321, 2001. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800960a
Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.12, issue.2, pp.146-147, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2002.00339.x
Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars. A 3-year clinical study, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.23, issue.1, pp.2-8, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00416.x
Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: A six year follow up ASDC, J Dent Child, vol.52, pp.435-440, 1985. ,
Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children, Dental Materials, vol.3, issue.4, pp.182-186, 1987. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0109-5641(87)80031-3
Composite restorations for primary molars: Results after four years, Pediatr Dent, vol.9, pp.136-143, 1987. ,
A) de 4 ans : 152 restaurations de classes I et II avec un taux d'échec de 0,6% à 2 ans et 357 restaurations de classe I et II ,
Clinical evaluations of composite resin restorations in primary molars: a 4-year follow-up study, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.117, issue.5, pp.603-606, 1988. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0057
Clinical evaluation of light-cured composite resin inlays in primary molars ,
Clinical evaluation and marginal leakage of Amalgambond Plus : Three-years results ,
A clinical study restoration of the primary teeth by light cured composite resin and bonding system : 3 year follow-up study, Pediatr Dent, vol.21, pp.258-264, 1999. ,
A thirty months clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin inprimary molars, J Clin Pediatr Dent, vol.24, pp.113-155, 2000. ,
Three-year follow up assessment of class II restorations in primary molarswith a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite, Am J Dent, vol.14, pp.148-152, 2001. ,
Durability of a Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin (Compomer) in Primary Molars: A Multicenter Study, Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol.74, issue.4, pp.255-260, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.3109/00016359709115424
Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3-year results, Am J Dent, vol.11, pp.143-148, 1998. ,
Clinical, radiographic and SEM evaluation of compomer restorations in deciduous teeth after 2 years, Acta Med Dent Helv, vol.3, pp.48-53, 1998. ,
Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in Class II restorations of primary teeth: A two-year follow up study, Pediatr Dent, vol.21, pp.231-234, 1999. ,
Compomers as Class II restorations in primary molars, Pediatr Dent, vol.23, pp.24-27, 2001. ,
Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: retrospective study in children, J Dent Child, vol.66, pp.93-97, 1999. ,
Dyract versus Tytin Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: 36 Months Evaluation, Caries Research, vol.33, issue.5, pp.387-392, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000016538
Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation, British Dental Journal, vol.128, issue.6, pp.339-342, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560
Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study, Pediatr Dent, vol.26, pp.245-250, 2004. ,
Ketac Molar versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results, J Dent Child, vol.67, pp.37-39, 2000. ,
One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth, J Dent Assoc S Afri, vol.57, pp.366-371, 2002. ,
Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months, Br Dent J, vol.189, pp.93-97, 2000. ,
Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer, European Journal of Oral Sciences, vol.71, issue.2, pp.188-196, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00061-5
Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite, Am J Dent, vol.14, pp.48-152, 2001. ,
CLINICAL EVALUATION OF COMPOMER IN PRIMARY TEETH: 1-YEAR RESULTS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.128, issue.8, pp.1088-1096, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0366
article ressemble davantage à une RNL à partir d'une recherche dite exhaustive des articles sur le sujet. Les auteurs indiquaient que les compomères pouvaient se substituer aux amalgames, sous réserve d'une bonne coopération de l'enfant ,
Clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement in primary molars, Pediatr Dent, vol.22, pp.486-488, 2000. ,
Three-year clinical performance of glass ionomer cement in primary molars, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.12, issue.2, pp.146-147, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2002.00339.x
Fuji IX GP) suivis 24 et 36 mois avec un taux d'échec des classes II de 6,6% à 24 et 36 mois, mais beaucoup de perdus de vue Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7-year study on three resinmodified glass ionomer cements and a compomer, Eur J Oral Sci, vol.112, pp.188-196, 2004. ,
Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months, Brit Dent J, vol.189, pp.93-97, 2000. ,
Essai clinique en bouche fractionnée intéressant les restaurations de classe I suivies jusqu'à 42 mois ; comparant 3 CVIMAR (Chemfil Fil) et un compomère (Dyract) Durée de survie des CVI (37 mois), significativement inférieure à celle des compomères (42 mois). Grade B2. CVIMAR / cermets Espelid I Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth, J Dent, vol.27, pp.437-442, 1999. ,
CLINICAL PERFORMANCE AND CARIES INHIBITION OF RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, Essai clinique en bouche fractionnée comparant CVIMAR (Vitremer) et cermet, pp.1459-1466, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056
Changes in dentists' attitudes and practice in paediatric dentistry, Europ J Paediatr Dent, vol.4, pp.21-28, 2003. ,
The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the north west region of England to restore the primary dentition, Journal of Dentistry, vol.30, issue.2-3, pp.77-82, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00061-6
Treatment policies among Israeli specialists in paediatric dentistry, European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.6, pp.73-81, 2005. ,
A pilot study of the marginal adaptation and surface morphology of glass -cermet cements, Quintessence Int, vol.27, pp.493-501, 1996. ,
Complex primary molar restorations using a composite resins. (A 42-month study using amalgam as comparative material), J Calif Dent Assoc, vol.7, pp.39-42, 1979. ,
A three-year clinical evaluation of composite resin and a high copper amalgam in posterior primary teeth, J Dent Child, vol.47, pp.414-422, 1980. ,
Fluoride supplemented and non gamma 2 amalgam. A comparative clinical study into the primary and permanent dentition in children, Swed Dent J, vol.9, pp.49-53, 1985. ,
Two-year clinical evaluation of a proprietary composite resin for the restoration of primary posterior teeth, Pediatr Dent, vol.7, pp.14-22, 1985. ,
The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown mol ar restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice, Br Dent J, vol.169, issue.9, p.285, 1990. ,
A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgamrestorations in primary molars, J Dent Child, vol.57, pp.184-192, 1990. ,
The use of glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements in the deciduous dentition, British Dental Journal, vol.165, issue.1, pp.13-20, 1988. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806480
The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration, British Dental Journal, vol.170, issue.5, pp.177-181, 1991. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807465
Dyract versus Tytin Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: 36 Months Evaluation, Caries Research, vol.33, issue.5, pp.387-92, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000016538
Effectiveness of Glass-Ionomer (ART) and Amalgam Restorations in the Deciduous Dentition: Results after 3 Years, Caries Research, vol.36, issue.6, pp.437-481, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000066531
Taux d'échec des restaurations classe II amalgames (58%) ne différait pas significativement de celui des CVI (51%) à 3 ans (Critères de Frencken et al, soit un taux de survie cumulatif à 3 ans de 427% (CVI) (p>0,05). Grade B1, p.9, 1996. ,
The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.13, issue.Suppl. 1, pp.172-181, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00455.x
Longevity and Cariostatic Effects of Everyday Conventional Glass-ionomer and Amalgam Restorations in Primary Teeth: Three-year Results, Journal of Dental Research, vol.76, issue.7, pp.1387-1396, 1997. ,
DOI : 10.1177/00220345970760070901
Eight???year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth, Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol.23, issue.6, pp.37-45, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1080/00016350310008689
Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children, J Dent Child, vol.66, pp.93-100, 1999. ,
CLINICAL PERFORMANCE AND CARIES INHIBITION OF RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT AND AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.130, issue.10, pp.1459-66, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056
Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation, British Dental Journal, vol.128, issue.6, pp.339-381, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801560
Restaurations réalisées sans digue (Critères USPHS) Taux de perte complète des amalgames de 6,6% versus 3 ,
Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study, Pediatr Dent, vol.26, pp.245-50, 2004. ,
Evaluation des restaurations avec critères USPHS sur 24 mois. Taux d'échecs des amalgames (2%) ne différent pas ,
Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionom er restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars: a clinical prospective study, Eur J Paediatr Dent, vol.5, pp.136-142, 2004. ,
Evaluation des restaurations avec les critères USPHS sur 24 mois et présence d'une lésion carieuse sur la face adjacente à la restauration, saine, essentiellement recherchée. Taux d'échec des amalgames (2,4% dans chaque groupe) n'était pas significativement ,
Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children, Dental Materials, vol.3, issue.4 ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0109-5641(87)80031-3
A two-year clinical study of a carvable composite resin used as class II restorations in primary molars, J Dent Child, vol.47, pp.405-418, 1980. ,
The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.13, issue.Suppl. 1, pp.172-79, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2003.00455.x
Amalgame versus CVI (Chem-Flex, Dentsply) non significatif ,
1% pour 1 face et 100% pour multi-faces) et la seconde à 22 mois (93,7% pour 1 face et 83, pp.3-983 ,
Effectiveness of Glass-Ionomer (ART) and Amalgam Restorations in the Deciduous Dentition: Results after 3 Years, Caries Research, vol.36, issue.6, pp.437-481, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000066531
Amalgame versus CVI (Fuji IX, GC ; Ketac Molar, 3MESPE) avec une différence significative en faveur des CVI pour classes I (et pas pour classes II) ,
Comparison of ART and conventional cavity preparation for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars : 1-tear resulst, Quintessence Int, vol.33, pp.17-21, 2002. ,
Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results, International Dental Journal, vol.81, issue.Special Issue A, pp.42-46, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2004.tb00251.x
-1 face à 1 an : 95% (ET 3,8) et 2 ans : 89% (ET 6,5) (d'après article original 94, pp.7-12 ,
one-year evaluation of ART and minimal intervention techniques on primary teeth, S Afr Dent J, vol.57, pp.366-71, 2002. ,
Clinical investigation of a high-strengh glass ionomer restorative used with the ART technique in Wuhan, China : 1-year results, Chin J Dent Res, vol.2, pp.73-78, 1999. ,
Clinical Investigation of Two Glass???Ionomer Restoratives Used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Approach in China: Two???Years Results, Caries Research, vol.35, issue.6, pp.458-63, 2001. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000047490
Three-year survival of single- and two-surface ART restorations in a high-caries child population, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.24, issue.3, pp.337-380, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-007-0138-8
A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.137, issue.11, pp.1529-1536, 2006. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0087
Ketac Molar Versus Dyract Class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical results, ASDC J Dent Child, vol.67, pp.37-41, 2000. ,
qui comparait les restaurations aux amalgames et les ART, 2002. ,
Taux de survie, exprimé sur un graphique, plus important pour la digue ,
Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.19, issue.6, pp.419-425, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01060.x
1% (18) de survie pour rouleaux de coton et 20% (32,1) pour la digue (pas de différence significative) ,
Influence de la taille de la cavité sur la survie des restaurations des molaires temporaires réalisées selon la méthode atraumatique de restauration (ART) (60) ,
Clinical evaluation of a posterior composite 10-year report, Journal of Dentistry, vol.27, issue.1, pp.13-19, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00026-8
Three-year clinical performance of a compomer in stress-bearing restorations in permanent posterior teeth, Am J Dent, vol.16, pp.255-259, 2003. ,
Niveau de preuve et gradation des recommandations de bonne pratique . Saint-Denis-la-Plaine : HAS, 2013 Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth Does fluoride in compomers prevent future caries in children ?, Am J Dent J Dent Res, vol.22121888, pp.198-211276, 2005. ,
Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity : a systematic review, Clin Oral Investig, vol.17 ,
La sécurité des amalgames dentaires pour les patients et l'environnement au regard des positions de la communauté scientifique. Pratiques et organisations des soins, pp.133-177, 2009. ,
Restoration of Posterior Teeth in Clinical Practice: Evidence Base for Choosing Amalgam Versus Composite, Dental Clinics of North America, vol.53, issue.1, pp.71-77, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.cden.2008.11.001
Travaux de l'Anses sur les usages et effets, recommandations [Internet] ,
The tooth, target organ of bisphenol A, could be used as a biomarker of exposure to this agent, In: Bisphenol A. Nova Science Publishers, pp.205-230, 2014. ,
Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature, Pediatr Dent, vol.24, issue.5, pp.423-432, 2002. ,
Stainless steel crowns versus amalgams in the primary dentition and decision-making in clinical practice, Gen Dent, vol.54, issue.351, pp.347-50, 2006. ,
The state-of-the-art of ART restorations, Dent Update, vol.41, issue.3, pp.218-238, 2014. ,
Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.27, issue.2, pp.63-70, 2003. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7
EFFICACY OF PREFORMED METAL CROWNS VS. AMALGAM RESTORATIONS, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.131, issue.3, pp.337-380, 2000. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0177
Systematic review of conservative operative caries management strategies ,
Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature, Pediatr Dent, vol.24, issue.5, pp.489-500, 2002. ,
Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth, Am J Dent, vol.18, issue.3, pp.198-211, 2005. ,
The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach for managing dental caries: a meta analysis, Int Dent J. déc, vol.56, issue.6, pp.345-51, 2006. ,
Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.54, issue.1 ,
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262565
Compomers in restorative therapy of children: a literature review, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.52, issue.1, pp.2-9, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00650.x
Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, issue.1, p.5512, 2007. ,
Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.170, issue.9, pp.5-13, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262564
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition, Cochrane Database Syst Rev Online, issue.2, p.4483, 2009. ,
Atraumatic restorative treatment versus amalgam restoration longevity: a systematic review, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.357, issue.3, pp.233-273, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-009-0335-8
Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -II, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.213-72, 2012. ,
Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -III, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.273-331, 2012. ,
Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -Protocol, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.29-42, 2012. ,
Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to that of conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review update -Erratum, J Minim Interv Dent, vol.5, pp.209-219, 2012. ,
Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared with that of conventional amalgam restorations--evidence from an update of a systematic review, pp.329-360, 2012. ,
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.14, issue.2, pp.429-470, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-011-0513-3
Is Atraumatic restorative treatment an option for restoring occlusoproximal caries lesions in primary teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.321, issue.6, pp.435-478, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1111/ipd.12013
The Longevity of dental restorations. A systematic review. NHS Centre of reviews and dissemination, 2001. ,
Influence of the operatory field isolation technique on tooth-colored direct dental restorations, Am J Dent, vol.27, issue.3, pp.155-164, 2014. ,
Survival characteristics of composite restorations in primary teeth, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.43, issue.7 Suppl, pp.31-2014 ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-014-1389-9
Longevity of composite restorations in patients with early childhood caries (ECC), Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.64, issue.2, pp.775-82, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-1043-y
Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.137, issue.1, pp.117-141, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-0955-x
Sealing versus partial caries removal in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial, BMC Oral Health, vol.16, issue.1, p.58, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.cden.2010.03.001
Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars?, Dental Materials, vol.30, issue.10, pp.1172-1180, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.010
The success of stainless steel crowns placed with the Hall technique, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.145, issue.12, pp.1248-53, 1939. ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.2014.89
The 3.5-year survival rates of primary molars treated according to three treatment protocols: a controlled clinical trial, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.39, issue.4, pp.1061-1070, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-1077-1
Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: Results from a paediatric dental clinic, Journal of Dentistry, vol.42, issue.10, pp.1248-54, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.08.005
A preliminary clinical trial using flowable glass-ionomer cement as a liner in proximal-ART restorations: The operator effect, Medicina Oral Patolog??a Oral y Cirugia Bucal, vol.18, issue.3, pp.529-561, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.4317/medoral.18497
The effect of GIC-brand on the survival rate of proximal-art restorations, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.11, issue.Suppl, pp.251-259, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01259.x
Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18 -month results ,
Two-year evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in primary molars class I and II restorations, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.13, issue.4, pp.249-53, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01125.x
Sealing Caries in Primary Molars: Randomized Control Trial, 5-year Results, Journal of Dental Research, vol.90, issue.12, pp.1405-1415, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1177/0022034511422064
Effects of oral hygiene, residual caries and cervical Marginal-gaps on the survival of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment approach restorations, Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, vol.2, issue.4, pp.318-341, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.4103/0976-237X.91796
Two-year survival rates of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations in relation to glass ionomer cements and Postrestoration meals consumed, Pediatr Dent, vol.33, issue.3, pp.246-51, 2011. ,
Evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer serving both as indirect pulp therapy and as restorative material for primary molars, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.32, issue.1, pp.170-175, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262801
Survival of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars placed in school environment and hospital dental setup-one year follow-up study, Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, vol.16, issue.7, pp.973-980, 2011. ,
Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-Month results, Journal of Dentistry, vol.38, issue.6, pp.451-460, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.02.004
Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.19, issue.6, pp.419-444, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01060.x
A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1???year follow up, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.172, issue.6, pp.410-418, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2010.01067.x
Comparison of Conventional versus Colored Compomers for Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A 12-Month Clinical Study, Medical Principles and Practice, vol.19, issue.2, pp.148-52, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000273077
Two-year survival of glass ionomer sealants placed as part of proximal atraumatic restorative treatment restorations, East Afr Med J, vol.87, issue.9, pp.375-81, 2010. ,
Influence of different isolation methods on the survival of proximal ART restorations in primary molars after two years, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.54, issue.1, pp.136-145, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262729
The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.18, issue.1, pp.1-7, 2010. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01017.x
Clinical evaluation of a colored compomer in primary molars, Med Princ Pract Int J Kuwait Univ Health Sci Cent, vol.18, issue.1, pp.31-35, 2009. ,
A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars, The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol.140, issue.2 ,
DOI : 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0129
Influence of the experience of operator and assistant on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations: two-year results, European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.54, issue.4, pp.227-259, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1007/BF03262687
Influence of the cavity-size on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in primary molars, International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol.3, issue.6, pp.423-453, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01013.x
Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.30, issue.3, pp.325-357, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-008-0241-5
Does Fluoride in Compomers Prevent Future Caries in Children?, Journal of Dental Research, vol.88, issue.3, pp.276-285, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1875-595X.1999.tb00525.x
One-year survival of occlusal ART restorations in primary molars placed with and without cavity conditioner, J Dent Child Chic Ill, vol.76, issue.2, pp.136-177, 2009. ,
The dilemma of selecting suitable proximal carious lesions in primary molars for restoration using ART technique, Community Dent Health, vol.28, issue.1, pp.12-18, 2011. ,
Survival rate of proximal-ART restorations using a two-layer technique for glass ionomer insertion, 2012. ,
Matériaux de restauration des molaires temporaires remplaçant les amalgames, Clinic, vol.36, pp.307-320, 2015. ,
Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements versus ,
Implant loading protocols for partially edentulous maxillary posterior sites, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.24, 2009. ,
Local risk factors for implant therapy, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.24, pp.28-38, 2009. ,
Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review, Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol.18, issue.12, pp.1351-1360, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x
Clinical Evaluation of Resin Composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer in Class III Restorations of Primary Maxillary Incisors: A Comparative In Vivo Study, International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol.2, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1024
Single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla by means of immediate implantation and provisionalization: a review, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.23, issue.5, pp.897-904, 2008. ,
Immediately restored dental implants for partial-arch applications. A literature update, Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, vol.13, issue.7, pp.451-456, 2008. ,
Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient?, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, vol.22, 2007. ,
To what extent does the longevity of fixed dental prostheses depend on the function of the cement? Working Group 4 materials: cementation, Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol.7, issue.(Suppl. 1), pp.193-204, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01442.x
Ante's (1926) law revisited: a systematic review on survival rates and complications of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on severely reduced periodontal tissue support, Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol.53, pp.63-72, 2007. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01438.x
Complete or ultraconservative removal of decayed tissue in unfilled teeth, Australian Dental Journal, vol.139, issue.3, 2006. ,
DOI : 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01133.x
Longevity of the tooth/restoration complex: a review, J Calif Dent Assoc. Feb, vol.34, issue.2, pp.122-130, 2006. ,
Full arch impression techniques utilizing addition type poly vinyl siloxane for fabrication of tooth born fixed partial dentures, Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim, vol.23, issue.1, pp.42-48, 2006. ,
Predictors of dental implant survival, J Mass Dent Soc, 2006. ,
Conservative operative management strategies. Dent Clin North Am, pp.847-65, 2005. ,
Indexing and Provisional Restoration of Single Implants, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol.63, issue.9, pp.11-21, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.311
Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, issue.1, p.4347, 2004. ,
The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent, pp.501-506, 2002. ,
The use of amalgam in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent, 2002. ,
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials, Dental Materials, vol.28, issue.1, pp.87-101, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003
Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.18, issue.Suppl 1, pp.125-137, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-013-0957-8
double-blind, randomized clinical trial of a one-step, self-etch adhesive with and without an intermediary layer of a flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation, Quintessence Int, vol.43, pp.279-286, 2012. ,
Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material, Journal of Dentistry, vol.40, issue.9, pp.703-713, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.020
Three-year clinical performance of composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students, Brazilian Dental Journal, vol.22, issue.2, pp.111-117, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1590/S0103-64402011000200004
Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol.21, issue.3, pp.243-249, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1590/1679-775720130129
Longevity of materials for pit and fissure sealing???Results from a meta-analysis, Dental Materials, vol.28, issue.3, pp.298-303, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.002
Arrest of noncavitated dentinal occlusal caries by sealing pits and fissures: a 36-month, randomised controlled clinical trial, Int Dent J, vol.62, pp.251-255, 2012. ,
A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results, Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol.17, issue.4, pp.307-314, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1590/S1678-77572009000400008
Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: A 7-year evaluation, Dental Materials, vol.27, issue.2, pp.150-156, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.010
Effect of adhesive restorations over incomplete dentin caries removal: 5-year followup study in primary teeth, J Dent Child, vol.76, pp.117-122, 2009. ,
5-Year survival of ART restorations with and without cavity disinfection, Journal of Dentistry, vol.37, issue.6, pp.468-474, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.03.002
Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations, Dent Mater, vol.26, pp.7-12, 2010. ,
Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries -a review: report of a FDI task group, Int Dent J, vol.62, issue.5, pp.223-266, 2012. ,
Managing dental caries with atraumatic restorative treatment in children: successful experience in three Latin American countries, Revista Panamericana de Salud P??blica, vol.33, issue.4, pp.237-280 ,
DOI : 10.1590/S1020-49892013000400001
Survival of ART restorations assessed using selected FDI and modified ART restoration criteria, Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.30, issue.3, pp.409-424, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s00784-010-0403-0
Flowable glass ionomer cement as a liner: improving marginal adaptation of atraumatic restorative treatment restorations, J Dent Child, vol.77, issue.1, pp.12-18, 2010. ,
Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements, Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol.17, issue.spe, pp.78-83, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1590/S1678-77572009000700014
Microbiological Analysis after Complete or Partial Removal of Carious Dentin in Primary Teeth: A Randomized Clinical Trial, Caries Research, vol.43, issue.5, pp.354-358, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1159/000231572
Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations: a meta-analysis, Eur J Paediatr Dent, vol.10, pp.41-46, 2009. ,
Managing dental caries in children in Turkey--a discussion paper Description du système de santé Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S, Berazza AC, Leal SC Caries preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: a meta analysis, BMC Oral Health. J Oral Sci, vol.9, issue.51, pp.32373-382, 2009. ,