FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1993011194> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1993011194 endingPage "473" @default.
• W1993011194 startingPage "459" @default.
• W1993011194 abstract "Objectives: To give the practising dentist scientifically based data to assist him/her in the responsible decision-making process necessary to weigh the options available to the patient if she/he prefers not to have an amalgam placed. Data sources: Based on the literature and on the research work, which was done in the author's department, the indications and limitations of the known alternatives of amalgam were formulated. Description of alternatives to amalgam: With the exception of cast gold restorations, all alternatives require the strict use of adhesive techniques. When compared with similar amalgam restorations, placing composite restorations (if they are indicated) takes approximately 2.5 times longer because complex incremental techniques are needed. Despite all the efforts, direct composite restorations placed in large cavities still show unacceptable amounts of marginal openings. Tooth-coloured inlays are a better alternative for large restorations. These restorations must be inserted with adhesive techniques. With composite inlays it is difficult to achieve a composite-composite bond. Ceramic inlays may be micromechanically bonded to the luting composite. They all show clinically a good marginal behaviour and the use of ultrasonic energy may further simplify the application technique of aesthetic inlays. Study selection: Papers describing the different techniques were used as a base for the corresponding chapter. To assess and compare the longevity of the different restoration types, literature data were used. We limited ourselves to papers reporting at least 5-year clinical data. Longitudinal, clinically controlled studies were preferred. However, to be more complete, retrospective, cross sectional studies were also included. Longevity of posterior restorations: Amalgam shows excellent longevity data with studies up to 20 years. The average annual failure rate is 0.3–6.9%. Posterior composites are in the same range (0.5–6.6%), however, the study times are much shorter (max. 10 years). For tooth-coloured inlays much less data are available. Longevity is reported up to 6 years with annual failure rates of 0.6–5%. Conclusions: All aesthetic alternatives to amalgam require more complex procedures and more time. If cost benefit considerations are a concern, amalgam is still the most convenient restorative material for posterior teeth." @default.
• W1993011194 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1993011194 creator A5067743839 @default.
• W1993011194 date "1997-11-01" @default.
• W1993011194 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W1993011194 title "Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam" @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1972085843 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1975114651 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1985653831 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1988744015 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1992524786 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1994527761 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1997448149 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W1998952656 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2003500951 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2006890589 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2008849429 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2009947656 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2024714979 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2031646067 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2046411762 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2046426871 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2047232051 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2054112038 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2059830050 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2062374750 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2083264197 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2084482849 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2087155442 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2089008850 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2090432905 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2107919555 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2118049326 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2158107281 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2325764863 @default.
• W1993011194 cites W2338457727 @default.
• W1993011194 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(96)00066-8" @default.
• W1993011194 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9604577" @default.
• W1993011194 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W1993011194 type Work @default.
• W1993011194 sameAs 1993011194 @default.
• W1993011194 citedByCount "191" @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942012 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942013 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942014 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942015 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942016 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942017 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942018 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942019 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942020 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942021 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942022 @default.
• W1993011194 countsByYear W19930111942023 @default.
• W1993011194 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1993011194 hasAuthorship W1993011194A5067743839 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C104779481 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C147789679 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C17525397 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C190719290 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C51795115 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C104779481 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C11413529 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C147789679 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C17525397 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C185592680 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C190719290 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C192562407 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C199343813 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C29694066 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C41008148 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C51795115 @default.
• W1993011194 hasConceptScore W1993011194C71924100 @default.
• W1993011194 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1993011194 hasLocation W19930111941 @default.
• W1993011194 hasLocation W19930111942 @default.
• W1993011194 hasOpenAccess W1993011194 @default.
• W1993011194 hasPrimaryLocation W19930111941 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2032853290 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2054853297 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2069629726 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2382284890 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2392905852 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2404896404 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2408302236 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W2473064315 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W3194754141 @default.
• W1993011194 hasRelatedWork W4361276252 @default.
• W1993011194 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W1993011194 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1993011194 isRetracted "false" @default.

• next