1. Aboush YEY, Jenkins CBG, An evaluation of the bonding of glass-ionomer restoratives to dentine and enamel. Br Dent J 1986; 161: 179-84.
2. Aboushala A, Kuge] G, Hurley E. Class II composite resin restorations using glass-ionomer liners: Microlcakage studies. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996; 21: 67-70.
3. Altay AN. Tip II cam
iyonome
r sımanlarm süt dişi mine ve denünine bağlanma kuvvetlerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Doktora Tezi Hacettepe Üniv Diş Hek Fak. Ankara: 1991.
4. Borba de Araujo F, Garcia-Godoy F. A comparison ol" three resin bonding agents to primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 1997; 19: 253-7.
5. Cooley RL, Barkmeier WW. Dentinal shear bond strength, microlcakage, and contraction gap of visible light-polymerized liners/bases. Quintessence lnt 1991; 22: 467-74.
6. Croll TP, Phillips RW. Six years' experience with glass-ionomer-silver cermet cement. Quintessence Int. 1991;22:783-93.
7. Croll TP, Killian CM, Helpin ML. A restorative dentistry renaissance for children: Light-hardened glass ionomer/resin cement. J Dent Child 1993; 60: 89-94.
8. Croll TP, Helpjn ML, Class II vitremer restoration of primary molars. J Dent Child 1995 ; 62: 17-21.
9. Ferrari M, Mason PN, Bettelli E. A new dentinal bonding agent and microfiiled resin system: A 2-ycar clinical report. Quintessence lnt 1990; 21: 875-81.
fO. Forstcn L, Karjafainen S. Glass ionomers in proximal cavities of primary molars, Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:70-3.
11. Harelen L. Clinical experience with glass ionomer for proximal fillings. Acta Odontol Scand 1993; 51: 195-200.
12. Fuks AB. Shapira J. Bielak 5. Clinical evaluation of a glass-ionomer cement used as a class If restorative material in primary molars. J Pcdodontics 1984; 8: 393-6.
13. Fusayama T. Indications for self-cured and light-cured adhesive composite resins. J Prosthct Dent 1992;67:46-51.
14. Garcia-Godoy F. Glass ionomer materials in class II composite resin restorations: To etch or not to etch? Quintessence lnt 1988; 19: 241-2.
] 5- Geurtsen W, Schoclcr U, A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class 1 and Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25:229-32.
16- Gunday
M
, Türkmen C. Başaran B. Işınla ve kimyasal olarak sertleşen cam iyonomer siman yüzeylerine asit uygulanmasının yüzey morfolojisi üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. T Ü Diş Hek Fak Dcrg 1994; 28: 17 22.
17. Ihckcl R, VQSS A. A comparison of glass ce rmei ceme n t and am al gam restorati ons in prima ry molars. J Dent Child 1990; 57: 184-8.
18. Hinoura K, Moore BK, Phillips RW, Tensile bond strength between glass ionomer cements and compoiile renins. JADA 1987; 114: 167-72.
19.
Karta
l M. Bilimsel araştırmalarda hipotez testleri, pararîletrik Ve nonparametrik teknikler. Atatürk Üniv İ İ B F Yayını (176) Erzurum: Doğu Ofset Matbaacılık, 1993; 164-72, 183-7.
20. Krsibbs PL The clinical performance of a glass polyalkenoate (glass ionomer) cement used in a "sandwich" technique with a composite resin to restore class II cavities. Br Dent J 1992; 172: 103-7.
21. Lacy AM, Young DA. Modem concepts and materials for the pediatric dentist. Am Academy Pediatr Dent 1996; 18: 469-78.
22. Leini'cldcr KF. New developments in resin restorative systems. JADA 1997; 128:573-81.
23. Lidums A, Wilkie R, Smales R. Occlusal glass ionomer cermet, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations :A 2-year clinical study (Abstracts of special interest) J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996; 20: 178,
24. Mangum Fl, Berry III F.A, Pankh UK, Udd D-Optimal etching time of glass ionomer cement for maximum bond of composite resin. JADA 1990; 120; 535-S.
25. Mcljcan JW, Wilson AD. The clinical development of the glass-ionomer cements. L Formulations and properties. Aust Dent J 1977; 22: 31-6.
26. McLean JW, Prosser HJ. Wilson AD. The use of glass-ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to
dentine. Br Dent J 1985; 158: 410-4.
23
Atatürk Üniv.Djş Hek.Fak.Derg.
CilLS, Sayı:2, Sayfa:17-24J998
GÜNDOĞDU, KIRZIOGLU
27. McLeajı JW. The clinical use of glass ionomer cements. Dent Ctin North Am 1992; 36: 693-711.
28. Mount GJ. The wettability of bonding resins used in the composite resin/glass ionomer "sandwich technique". Aust Dent J 1989; 34; 32-5.
29. Monnt GJ. The tensile strength of the union between various glass ionomer cements and various composite resins. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 136-46.
30- Mount GJ. Clinical requirements for a successful "sandwich" dentine to glass ionomer cement to composite resin. Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 259-65.
31. Mount GJ. Some physical and biological properties of glass ionomer cement. Int Dent J 1995; 45: 135-40.
32. Prati C, Tao L, Simpson M, Pashley DH. Permeability and rrticroleakage Qf Class II resin composite restorations. J Dent 1994; 22: 49-56,
33. Reich E. Glasionomer-zement und sandwich-fitllungen nach zwei jahren in vivo. Dtsch ZahniiztIZ 1991; 46: 161^.
34. Relief DH. Do adhesives prevent micrDleakflgr? Int Dent J 1994; 44: 19-26.
35. Roberts MW, Folio J, Moffa JP, Guckes AD Clinical evaluation of a composite resin system with a dentin bonding agent for restoration of permanent posterior teeth: A 3 year-study. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 301-6.
36. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980; 30;
347-58.
37. Seymen F,
Gença
y K- Süt azılarına uygulanan kompozit ve amalgam restorasyonların iki yıllık klinik değçîtendirmesi. Pedodonti Klinik/Araştırma 1995; 2: 30-3.
38. Suzuki M, Jordan RE. Glass ioBoraer-composite sandwich technique. JADA 1990; 120: 55-7.
39.
Süne
n F, Sönmez H. Posterior kompozit Rsânteruı klinik özelliklerinin süt diklerinde incelenmesi. A Ü Piî Hek FafcDerg 1992; 19: 75-82.
40. Tonu EM, Ryge G, Chambers DW. A two-year clinical study of a carvable composite resin "used as class II restorations in primary molars. J Dent Child 1980; 47:405-13.
41. Tyas MJ, Toohey A, Clark J. Clinical evaluation of the bond between composite resin and etched {fast ionomer cement Aust Dent J 1989; 34: 1-4.
42. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of five adhesive systems: Three-year results. Int Dent J 1996; 46: 10-4.
43- Van de Voorde A, Gerdts GJ, Murchison DF. Clinical uses of glass ionomer cement: A literature review. Quintessence Int 1988; 19:53-61
44. Van Dijkcn JWV. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1994; 52: 368-76.
45. Varpio M. Prosimoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: A six-year falfow-up. J Dent Child 1985; 52: 435-40.
46. Walls AWG. Me Cabe JF, Murray JJ. Factors influencing the bond strength between glass pdyatkenoate (ionomer) cements and dentine. J Oral Rehabil 1988; 15; 537-47.
47. Watson TF, Bartlctt DW- Adhesive systems: Composites, dentine bonding agents and glass ionomers, Br Dent J 1994; 19:227-31.
48. Welbury RJt, Murray JJ. A clinical trial of the glass-ionomer cement-composite resin "sandwich" technique in class II cavities in permanent premolar and molar teeth. Quintessence Int 1990; 21: 507-12.
49. Welbury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ, MÜ Cabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991; 170: 177-81.
50. Wilkie R, Lidums A, Smales R, Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years (Abstracts of special interest) J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996; 20: 179.
Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com