medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2021, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2021; 78 (5)

The repetitive cycle in Restorative Dentistry.

Carrillo SC

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 283-290
PDF size: 300.25 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Changes in life, as so in the field of Dentistry, should always be for the improvement on most possible aspects. Many of the recent changes in Restorative Dentistry are focus on the use of cosmetic materials to replace previous metallic restorations, without total certainty of being better options. This has generated a marked increase in the tendency to practice, more emphatically, the replacement of previous restorations.


REFERENCES

  1. Carrillo SC. Diagnóstico de lesiones incipientes de caries ¿Es este el futuro de la Odontología? Rev ADM. 2010; 67 (1): 13-20.

  2. Carrillo SC. La caries secundaria y su adecuado diagnóstico. Rev ADM. 2012; 69 (6): 258-265.

  3. Mjor IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int. 2000; 31 (3): 165-179.

  4. Elderton R. Current understanding of oral diseases and abnormalities. In: Evolution in dental care. Chapter 3. Bristol, UK: Clinical Press Limited; 1990. pp. 13-36.

  5. Wilson NA, Whitehead SA, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. Reasons for the placement and replacement of crowns in general dental practice. Prim Dent Care. 2003; 10 (2): 53-59.

  6. Elderton R. Principles of decision-making to achieve oral health. In: Anderson M. Professional prevention in dentistry. Advances in Dentistry 1. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1994. pp. 3-27.

  7. Lutz F. Alternatives to amalgam in posterior teeth. In: Duke ES, editor. The changing practice of restorative dentistry. Proceedings of the 5th. Indianapolis, IN: Annual Indiana Conference. Indiana University School of Dentistry; 2002. pp. 263-274.

  8. Devlin H. Operative dentistry. A practical guide to recent innovations. Chapter 2. Berlin: Springer; 2006. pp. 17-47.

  9. Mjor IA. Reasons for restoration failures. In: Duke ES, editor. The changing practice of restorative dentistry. Proceedings of the 5th. Indianapolis, IN: Annual Indiana Conference. Indiana University School of Dentistry; 2002. pp. 47-55.

  10. Wilson NH, Brunton PA. Reducing the incidence of secondary caries. In: Duke ES, editor. The changing practice of restorative dentistry. Proceedings of the 5th. Indianapolis, IN: Annual Indiana Conference. Indiana University School of Dentistry; 2002. pp. 255-262.

  11. McComb D. Conservative operative management strategies. Dent Clin North Am. 2005; 49 (4): 847-865, vii-viii.

  12. Bayne S. Clinical decisions using the scientific method. In: Duke ES, editor. The changing practice of restorative dentistry. Proceedings of the 5th. Indianapolis, IN: Annual Indiana Conference. Indiana University School of Dentistry; 2002. pp. 13-26.

  13. Ryge R, Cvar J. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. U.S. Public Service 790244. San Francisco, CA: Government Publishing Office; 1970. pp. 1-42.

  14. Wilson N, Lynch CD, Brunton PA, Hickel R, Meyer-Lueckel H, Gurgan S et al. Criteria for the replacement of restorations: Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section. Oper Dent. 2016; 41 (S7): S48-S57.

  15. Opdam N, Hickel R. Operative dentistry in a changing dental health care environment. Oper Dent. 2016; 41 (S7): S3-S6.

  16. Simon JF, George LA. Factors for successful composite restorations. Inside Dentistry. 2014; 10 (6): 1-6.

  17. Brady LA. Avoiding restorative failure. Dent Today. 2013; 32 (3): 88-91.

  18. Arvanitis G. Criteria for the replacement of defective restorations. Dent Today. 2004; 23 (4): 78-81.

  19. Mjor IA, Wilson NHF. Carious lesions: management alternatives. J Oper Dent. 2001; (Suppl 6): 237-241.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com