You are here

Home » Content

RESTORASYONLARIN DEĞİŞTİRİLME VEYA TAMİR NEDENLERİ

RESTORATION REPLACEMENT OR REPAIRSMENT REASONS

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2003

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In our date because of rapid development of technology new restorative materials are marketed. A material can have much better properties, but it has a limited use. A time later it's clinical longevity is limited and occurs a need of replacement or repair process. The main problem which we confront with is the determination of the replacement or repair criteria. There is. no standart for these criteria. Because there may be a number of differences due to the dentist's education, knowledge, experimentation and possibilities. The aim of the article is to define these criteria and to give some information to the dentist which will help him to determine the standarts.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Günümüzde teknolojinin hızlı gelişmesi sonucu yeni restoratif materyaller piyasaya sürülmektedir. Bir materyalin özelliği ne kadar iyi olursa olsun sınırlı bir ömrü bulunmaktadır. Belirli bir süre sonra klinikte kullanımı sınırlanmakta, yenileme veya tamir gereksinimine ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Karşılaştığımız en önemli sorun bu yenileme veya tamir kriterlerinin saptanmasındaki zorluktur. Çünkü bu kriterlerin tam bir standartı bulunmamakta, hekimin eğitimi, bilgisi, tecrübesi, imkanları dahilinde çok farklılıklar gösterebilmektedir. Derlemenin amacı bu kriterlerin tanımını yapmak ve hekime yardımcı olabilecek standartların saptanması hususunda bilgi vermektir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-restorasyonlarin-degistirilme-tamir-nedenleri.pdf
  • 2
63-75
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Jokstad A, Baync S, Blıtnck U. Quality of dental restorations. J IntDent 2001 ;51: 117-158
2.
Uçtaki M B, Can H E, Ömürlü H. Amalgam restorasyonların değiştirilme nedenleri ve klinik ömürleri. A.Ü Dişhek Fak Derg 2002 ;29: 9-16
3. Blunck U. improving of servieal lesions. J Adhesive Dcnl200L 3: 33-44
4.
Gömc
ç Y, Dörtcr C, Koray F- Amalgam ve kompozit restorasyonların dağılımı. E Ü Dişhek Fak Derg 2001 ;22: 131-136
5. Kelsey W, Franco S, Blankenau R. Caries as a cause of restoration replacement. Quintessence Inl 1981 ;9: 71-974
6. Mjör TA, Um M C. Survey of amalgam and composite restorations in Korea, J lnt Dent 1993 ; 43: 311-316
7. Conference report : Criteria for placement and replacement of denial restorations . J Dent Res 1988 ; 67; 795-796
S.
Leinfelde
r KF. Criteria for Clinical Evaluation of Composite Resin Restorations. Quintessence lnl 1989 ; 139-145
9. Cvar J F, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. San Francisco: United States Dental Health Center 1971, publication no, 7902244
10. Allender L, Birkhed D, Bratthall D. Quality evaluation of anterior restorations in private practice. J SwcdDent 1989; 13: 141-150
11. Van Dijkcn JW. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfillcr and hybrid composite resin fillings. A 5-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand 1986; 44: 357-367
12. California Dental Association . Guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance. 3rd ed. Sacramento, CA: California Dental Association, 1995
YEŞİLYURT, BULUCU
13.
Altınbula
k H, Ergül N, Okşan T. Amalgam dolguların değiştirilme nedenleri ve sıklı|ı üzerine klinik bir çalışma. E Ü Dişhek Fak Berg 1994 ; 15: 91-97
14. Drake CW, Maryniuk GA, Bently CRcasons for restoration replacement. Quintessence lnt 1990 ; 21:125-130
15. Kroeze H J P, Plasschaert A J M. Prevalence and need for replacement of amalgam and composite restorations in Dutch adults. J Dcnl Res 1990 • 69(6): 1270-1274
16. Mjör 1A. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 1997 ; 55: 58-63
17. Qvist V, Strom C. 11 -year assesment of class-Ill resin restorations completed with two restorative procedures. Acta Odontol Scand 1993 ; 51: 253-262
18. Bergman MA. The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: a review. JAustDent 1999 ;44; 157-168
19. Dahi BL.Carlsson GE, Ekfeldt A. Occlusal wear of teeth and restorative materials. A review of classification, etiology, mechanisms of wear and some aspects of restorative procedures. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:299-311
20. Lambrechts F, Willems G, Vanherle G, ct al. Aesthetic limits of light-cured composite resins in anterior teeth. J lnt Dent 1990 ; 40: 149-158
21. Mjör IA, Qvwt V. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. J Dent 1997 ; 25: 25-30
22. Burke F J T. Cheung S W. Mjör IA. Restoration longevity and analysis of reason for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence lnt 1999 ; 30: 234-242
23. Özer L, Thylstrup A, What is known about caries in relations to restorations as a reason for replacement? A review. Adv Dent Res 1995 ; 9: 394-402
73
Atatürk Üniv.Diş Hek.Fak.Derg. Cilt 13, Sayı:2, Sayfa:63-75,20Ü3
YEŞİLYURT, BULUCU
24. Hals E, Nemaes A. Histopaihology of in vitro caries developing around silver amalgam fillings. Canes Res 1971 ; 5: 58-77
25. Kidd EAM. Seconder Caries . Dent Update 1981; 8; 253-260
26. HalLab FN, fil-Mwwafy DM, Salem NS, El-Badrawy WAG. An in vivo study on the release of fluoride from glass-ionomcr cement. Quintessence lnt 1991; 22:221-224
27. Knibbs PJ. Glass ionomer cement : 10 years of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil 1988 ; 15: 103-115
28. Mjör IA. Frequency of secondary caries at various anatomical locations, Oper Dent 1985 ; 10: 17-21
29. Foster LV. Validity of clinical judgements for the presence of secondary caries associated with defective amalgam restorations. J Br Dent 1994 ; 177; 89-93
30- Wilson NHF, Norman RD. Five-year findings of a multiclinical trial for a posterior composite. J Dent 1991 ; 19: 153-159
33. Zu el ling-Singer R, Bryant RW. Three-year evaluation of computer-machined ceramic inlays: influence of luting agent. Quintessence lnt 1998 , 29: 573-582
32. Plasmans PJJM, Crcugcrs N H .1. Mulder J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 1998 ; 77(3): 453-460
33. Wilson NHF. The evaluation of materials; relationship between laboratory investigations and clinical studies. Opcr Dent 1990; 15:149-155
34.
Alaça
m T, Nalbant L, Alaçam A. İleri Restorasyon Teknikleri. Polat Yayınlan, Ankara. 1998 ; 1 [, 260-261
35.
Olcinisk
y J C, Baratieri L N, Rittcr A V.
Influence of finishing and polishing procedures on the decision to replace old amalgam restorations. Quintessence lnt 1996 ; 27: 833-840
36. Parseli D E, Streckfus C F, Stewart B M. The effect of amalgam overhangs on alveolar bone height as a function of patient age and overhang width. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 94-99
37. Dunne S M. Gaınsford I D, Wilson NHF. Current materials and techniques for direct restorations in posterior teeth. J lnt Dent 1997 ; 47: 123-136
38. Cox C F. Pulp protection and direct capping with Ca(OH)2 versus adhesive resin system : a review of factors leading to failure or soccess. Modem Trends in Adhesive Dentistry. Preceding of the Adhesive Forum 99 in Tsurumui 145-147
39. Kallus T, Mjör IA. Incidence of adverse effects of dental materials. J Scand Dent Res 1991 ; 99; 236-240
40.
Alaça
m T. EndodonLı. Barış Yayınlan, Ankara. 200Û ; 73-105
41. Axelsson P, Lindhc J. Effect of controlled oral hygiene procedures on caries and periodontal disase in adults. J din Periodontol 1978;5:133-151
42. Mjör IA, Medina J E. Rcason.s for placement, replacement and age of gold restorations in selected practices. Oper Dent 1993 ; 18: 82-87
43. Wilson NHF, Burke FJT. Mjör IA. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations of direct restorative materials by a selected group of practitioners in the United Kingdom. Quintessence International 1997 ; 28: 245-248
44. Maryniuk GA, Kaplan SH. Longevity of restorations : survey results of dentists' estimates and attitudes. J Am Dent Assoc 1986 ; 112: 39-45
45. Burke FJT, Wilson NHF, Cheung S W.lnfluance of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reason for their placement of and replacement. J Dent 2001 ; 29: 317-324
46. Jokslad A, Mjör IA, Qvist V. The age of restorations in situ. Acta Odontol Scand 1994 ; 52: 234-242
74
Atatürk Ünîv.Diş Hek .Fak .Derg. Cilt:13, Sayı:2, Sayfa;63-75,2003
YEŞİLYURT, BULUCU
47. Wood RE, Maxymiw WG, Mc Comb D, A clinical ccımparision of glass ionomer(polyalkenoite) and silver amalgam restorations in the treatment of Class V caries in xerostomic head and neck cancer patients. Oper Dent 1993 ; 18: 94-102
48. Lei*e] H, Vrijhoef MMA: The influence of polishing on the marginal integrity of amalgam restorations. J Oral Rehabil 1984 ; 11; 89-94
49. Tobi H, Krtulen C M, Vondeling H. Cost-effectiveness of composite rezins and amalgam in the replacement of amalgam class II restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999 ; 27; 137-143
50. Hood J A A. Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and restored tooth. J lnt Dent 1991 ; 41: 25-32
51. Lul/. F, Krejci I. Direct posterior filling materials. In: Vanherle G, Dcgrange M, Wilfems G (eds ), Slate of the Art on Posterior Filling Materials and Dentine Bonding. Proceedings of an Internationa) Symposium. l*r; 15 28. Leuven: Van dcrPoorten, 1993
52. Anusavice K J. Materials of the future: Preservative or restorative? Oper Dctit 1998 ; 23: 162-167

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com