Son 10 Yılda Kompozit Rezin Restorasyonlar: İn Vivo ve İn Vitro Çalışmalarla Bir Derleme

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 3, 124 - 145, 31.12.2020

Nimet Ünlü , Sultan Gizem Ülkü

Öz

Kompozit rezinlerin 1962 yılında Bowen tarafından tanıtılmalarıyla başlayan süreçte, hastaların estetik beklentisinin
artması ve amalgam hakkındaki endişeler kompozit rezinleri tercih edilen materyal haline getirmiştir. Kompozit rezinlerin estetik olması, konservatif kavite preparasyonuna imkan sağlaması ve tamir edilebilmesi avantajlarının yanı
sıra polimerizasyon büzülmesi, fonksiyonel tüberküllerde kullanımında aşınma direncinin az olması gibi dezavantajları
bulunmaktadır. 1960’ların başından günümüze kadar kompozit rezinler hakkında çeşitli araştırmalar yapılmış, kompozit rezin materyali geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Geliştirilen özellikler ve bu alanda yapılan araştırmalar ile kompozit
rezinlerin dezavantajlarının elimine edilmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bununla birlikte literatürde kompozit rezin ile ilgili hem
in vivo hem de in vitro araştırmalar ın sayısı da artmıştır . Literatürdeki in vivo araştırmalarda hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti
ve incelenen toplam hasta sayısı gibi hastaya ait veriler yer almakla birlikte kullanılan materyaller, materyallerin klinik
değerlendirme kriterlerine ait veriler, restorasyon ömrü gibi veriler de çalışmanın değerlendirilen verileri arasında
yer almaktadır. Bu makalede, kompozit rezin restorasyonlar ve diğer restoratif materyaller ile ilgili literatürde yapılan
2010 ve sonrası in vivo ve in vitro çalışmalar derlenmiş ve bu çalışmalarda yer alan tüm veriler incelenerek tablolar
halinde sunulmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

kompozit rezin restorasyonlar, in vivo ve in vitro araştırmalar, klinik araştırmalar

Composite Resin Restorations in the Last 10 Years: A Review with In Vivo and In Vitro Studies Evaluation

Öz

In the process that started with the introduction of composite resins by Bowen in 1962, the increased aesthetic expectation of patients and concerns about amalgam have made composite resins the preferred material. As well as the advantages that composite resins being aesthetic, allow for conservative cavity preparation and can be repaired, there are disadvantages such as polymerization shrinkage, low wear resistance in use in functional tubercles. Various researches have been conducted on composite resins since the early 1960s and a composite resin material has been developed. It is aimed to eliminate the disadvantages of composite resins with the developed properties and researches in this field.
However, the number of both in vivo and in vitro studies on composite resin has increased in the literature. In vivo studies in the literature include patient data such as age, gender, and the total number of patients examined, and data such as the materials used, the data of the clinical evaluation criteria of the materials, and the restoration survival are among the evaluated data of the study. In this article, in vivo and in vitro studies conducted in the literature on composite resin restorations and other restorative materials in 2010 and later are compiled and all data in these studies are examined and presented in tables.

Kaynakça

• 1. K. Sunnegárd-Grönberg, JWV van Dijken, U. Funegárd, A. Lindberg, M. Nilsson. Selection of dental metariasl and longevity of replaced restorations in public dental health clinics in northern Sweden, J Dent 2009; 37: 673-78.
• 2. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations- a metaanalysis. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2012;14:407-31.
• 3. Correa MB, Peres M. A, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Do socieconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach. J Dent 2013; 41: 960-967.
• 4. Van de Sande FF, Opdam N. J, Rodolpho PA, Correa M. B, Demarco F. F, Cenci M. S. Patient risk factors’ influence on survival of posterior composites. Journal of Dental Research 2013; 92: 78S-83S.
• 5. Pallesen U, van Dijken j. W. V, Halken J, Hallonsten A.L, Höigaard R. Longevity of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations in Permanent Teeth in Public Dental Health Service: A Prospective 8 Years Follow up. J Dent 2013; 41(4): 297-306.
• 6. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87-101.
• 7. Ulla Pallesen, JWV van Dijken. A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in class II restorations. J Dent 2015; 43(12): 1547-58.
• 8. Francesco Ravasini, Dario Bellussi, Mario Pedrazzani, Tommaso Ravasini, et al. Treatment outcome of posterior composite indirect restorations: A retrospective 20-year analysis of 525 cases with a mean follow up of 87 months. The International Journal of Periodontics&Restorative Dentistry 2018; 38: 655-663.
• 9. ZS Kadzaeva, A Yu Turkina, V Yu Doroshina. The long-term results of teeth restoration with composite resin materails: A systematic literature review. Stomatologia 2019; 98(3): 117-122.
• 10. Luana Dutra de Carvalho, Renata Gondo, Guilherme Carpena Lopes. One-year clinical evaluation of resin composite restorations of noncarious cervical lesions in smokers. J Adhes Dent 2015; 17: 405-411.
• 11. Michael S McCracken, Valeria V Gordon, Mark S Litaker, et al. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144(6): 583-93. doi: 10.14219/jada.archieve.2013.0169
• 12. M. Laske, N.J. Opdam, E.M. Bronkhorst, J.C. Braspenning, M.C. Huysmans, Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice based research network. J. Dent. 46 (2016) 12-17.
• 13. C Namgung, YJ Rho, BH Jin, BS Lim, BH Cho. A retrospective clinical study of cervical restorations:longevity and failure-prognostic variables. Operative Dentistry 2013; 38(4):376-385.
• 14. Edina Lempel, Ákos Tóth, Tomás Fábian, Károly Krajczár, József Szalma. Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations:10-year findings. Dental Materials 2015; 31(2): 115-22.
• 15. Anelise Fernandes Montagner, Francoise Helene van de Sande, et al. Survival, reasons for failure and clinical characteristics of anterior/posterior composites: 8-year findings. 2018; 29(6): 547-554.
• 16. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci M, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, et al. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 2011; 27(10):955-63.
• 17. Pâmela Campagna, Lisara Tosatto Pinto, Tathiane Larissa Lenzi, et al. Survival and associated risk factors of composite restorations in children with early childhood caries: a clinical retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 2018; 40(3): 210-214.
• 18. Jiang W, Bo H, Yongchun G, Long Xing N. Stress distribution in molars restored with inlay sor onlays with or without endodontic treatment:a three dimensional finite elements analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103:6-12.
• 19. Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R, Pera F, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. The effect of the post length and cusp coverage on the cycling and static load of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Clinical Oral Investigations 2011; 15: 923-9.
• 20. Kanzow P, Wiegand A. Retrospective analysis on the repair vs. replacement of composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2019;36(1):108-118.
• 21. Dayangaç GB. Kompozit Rezin Restorasyonlar 1. Baskı, Ankara Güneş Kitabevi Ltd. Şti. 2000; s.89.
• 22. N Scotti, C Eruli, A Comba, et al. Longevity of class II restorations in root-filled teeth: a retrospective study. Journal of Dentistry 2015; 43(5): 499-505.
• 23. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paulo EA, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25: 55-69.
• 24. Munck JD, Landuyt KV, Peumans M , Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braeu M, Meerbeek BV. A critical review of durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005;84(2):118-132.
• 25. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Sano H, Tay FR, Kaga M, Kudou Y. Micromorphological changes in resin-dentin bonds after 1 year of water storage. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63:306-311.
• 26. Collares K, Opdam NJM, Laske M, Bronkhorst EM, Demarco FF, et al. Longevity of anterior composite restorations in a general dental practice-based network. J Dent Res 2017; 96: 1092-1099.
• 27. E Mahn, V. Rousson, S. Heintze. Meta-Analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations, J. Adhes. Dent. 17 (2015) 391-403.
• 28. Huang X, Li L, Huang C, Du X. Effect of ethanol-wet bonding with hydrophobic adhesive on caries-effected dentine. Eur J Oral Sci 2011; 119:310-315.
• 29. Misilli Umut. Farklı tekniklerle uygulanan kompozit restorasyonların mikrosızıntı düzeylerinin incelenmesi, Uzmanlık tezi. 2016, s.6.
• 30. Al-Samhan A, Al-Enezi H, Alomari Q. Clinical evaluation of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students of Kuwait University. Med Princ Pract 2010;19:299-304.
• 31. Luciano Casagrande, Alejandra Tejeda Seminario, Marco Britto Correa, et al. Longevity and associated risk factors in adhesive restorations of young prmanent teeth after complete and selective caries removal: A retrospective study. Clin Oral İnvestig. 2017; 21(3): 847-855.
• 32. Barthel CR, Rosenkranz B, Leuenberg A, Roulet JF. Pulp capping of carious exposures: treatment outcome after 5 and 10 years: a retrospective study. J Endod 2000; 26:525-528.
• 33. Mert Z-Fairhurst EJ, Curtis JW Jr, Ergle JW, Rueggeberg FA, Adair SM. Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations:results at year 10. J Am Dent Assos. 1998;129:55-66.
• 34. Bauer J, Vasilache I, Sdegel AK, et al. Esthetics and pysque-part 1: assesment of the influence of patient perceptions of body image and body experience on selection of existing natural tooth color. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25: 36-43.
• 35. Rubinstein S, Nidetz A. The art and science of the direct posterior restoration: recreating form, color and translucency. Alpha Orregan 2007; 100: 30-35.
• 36. Illie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, et al. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 489-498.
• 37. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoi C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 1141-1150.
• 38. Belli R, Geinzer E, Muschweck A, et al. Mechanical fatigue degradation of ceramics versus resin composites for dental restorations. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 424-432.
• 39. Tagtekin D. A, Yanikoglu F. C, Bozkurt F. O, et al. Selected characteristics of an ormocer and a conventional hybrid resin composite. Dent Mater 2004; 20(5): 487-97.
• 40. Keith H.S. Chan, Yanjie Mai, Harry Kim, Keith C.T. Tong, Desmond Ng, Jimmy C.M. Hsiao. Review:Resin composite filling. Materials(Basel). 2010;19:3(2):1228-43.
• 41. Weimann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005, 21, 68-74.
• 42. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 51-9.
• 43. Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A. Ifluence of increment thickness on microhardness and dentin bond strength of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 1104-1112.
• 44. Czasch P, Illie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 227-235.
• 45. Fronza BM, Rueggeberg FA, Braga RR, et al. Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composites. Dent Mater 2016; 31: 1542-1551.
• 46. El-Safty S, Akhtar R, Silikas N, Watts D. C. Nanomechanical properties of dental resin-composites. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 1292-1300.
• 47. Miletic V, Peric D, Milosevic M, Manojiovic D, Mitrovic N. Local deformation fields and marginal integrity of sculptable bulkfill, low-shrinkage and conventional composites. Dent Mater 2016; 32: 1441-1451.
• 48. U. Pallasen, JWV van Dijken. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in class II restorations. Dent Mater 2015;31(10):1232-44.
• 49. J Manhart, HY Chen, G Hamm, R Hickel. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004;29:481-508.
• 50. Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A six-year prospective randomized study of a randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in class II restorations. Dent Mater 2013; 29:191-198.
• 51. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999; 15(2): 128-37.
• 52. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Vagel K. Filler features and their effects on wear and degree of conversion of particulate dental resin composites. Biomaterials 2005;26:4932-7.
• 53. Ölmez A, Tuna D. Polimerizasyon büzülmesine etki eden faktörler. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Derg. 2002; 5(1): 52-57.
• 54. Alomari QD, Reinhardt JW, Boyer DB. Effect of liners on cusp deflection and gap formation in composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 406-411.
• 55. Aguiar FHB, Ajudarte KF, Lovadino JR. Effect of light curing modes and filling techniques on microleakage of posterior resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2002; 27: 557-562.
• 56. Niu Y, Ma X, Fan M, Zhu S. Effects of layering techniques on the micro-tensile bond strength to dentin in resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2009; 25(1): 129-34.
• 57. Giachetti L, Russo D. S, Bambi C, Grandini R. A Review of Polmerization Shrinkage Stress: Current Techniques For Posterior Direct Resin Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006; 7(4): 1-14.
• 58. Laiza T Poskus, Eliane Placido, Paulo E. Capel Candoso.Ifluence of placement techniques on Vickers and Knoop hardness of class II composite resin restorations. Dent Mater 2004;20(8):726-732.
• 59. Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N. Shrinkage stresses generated during resin composite applications: a review. J Dent Biomech 2010;2010:131630. Doi:10.4061/2010/131630.
• 60. Mantri SP, Mantri SS. Management of shrinkage stresses indirect restorative light-cured composites:a review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(5):305-13.
• 61. Douvitsas G. Effect of cavity design on gap formation in Class II composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65(4):475-479.
• 62. Dayangaç G. B. Kompozit Restorasyonlar. 2. Baskı, İstanbul, Quintessence Yayıncılık Ltd. Şti. 2011; 1-166.
• 63. Cho B. H, Dickens SH, Bae JH, Chang CG, Son HH, Um CM. Effect of interfacial bond quality on the direction of polymerization shrinkage flow in resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2002; 27: 297-304.
• 64. Ghavamnasiri M, Moosavi H, Tahvildarnejad N. Effect of centripetal and incremental methods in class II composite resin restorations on gingival microleakage. J Contempor Dent Practo 2007; 8(2): 1-7.
• 65. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF, Mazer RB, Russell CM. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on wear rate of posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;121:251-255.
• 66. Gönülol Nihal, Kalyoncuoğlu Elif, Ertaş Ertan, Misilli Tuğba. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3 year follow-up. Clin Oral İnvestig. 2018; 23(5): 2323-2330.
• 67. NK Kuper, NJM. Opdam, EM Bronkhorst, MCDNJM Huysmans. The infulence of approximal restoration extension on the development of secondary caries. J Dent. 2011; 40(3): 241-7.
• 68. R Montag, W Dietz, S Nietzsche, T Lang, K Weich, BW Sigusch, P Gaengler. Clinical and micromorphologic 29-year results of posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res. 2018; 97(13): 1431-1437.
• 69. Tyas MJ. Placement and replacement of restorations by selected practitioners. Aus Dent J 2005;50(2):81-9.
• 70. Wu J, Weir MD, Zhang Q, Zhou C, Melo MAS, Xu HH. Novel self healing dental resin with microcapsules of polimerizable triethyleneglycol dimetacrylate and N,N-dihydroxyethyl-p-toluidine. Dent Mater 2016;32(2):294-304.
• 71. Althaqafi KA, Satterthwaite J, Silikas N. A review and current state of autonomic self-healing microcapsules-based dental resin composites. Dent Mater. 2020;36(3):329-342.
• 72. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007b;9:469-475.
• 73. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138: 775-83.
• 74. Baroudi K, Silikas N, Watts DC. In vitro pulp chamber temperature rise from irradiation and exotherm of flowable composites. International Journal of Pediatric Dentistry. 2009;19:48–54.
• 75. Ailreza Boruziniat, Hossain Khaki, Sara Majidinia. Retrospective evaluation of the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using the snow-plow technique: up to 4 years follow-up. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019; 11(11): e964-8.
• 76. Johanna Tanner, Mimmi Tolvanem, Sufyan Garoushi, Eija Säilynoja. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite restorations in posterior teeth- results of 2,5 year follow up. Open Dent J. 2018; 12: 476-485.
• 77. Vichi A, Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Color and opacity variations in three different resin-based composite products after water aging. Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 530-4.
• 78. NJ Opdam, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014;93:943-949.
• 79. Edina Lempel, Bálint Viktor Lovász, Réka Meszarics, Sára Jeges, Ákos Tóth, József Szalma. Direct resin composite restorations for fractured maxillary teeth and diestema closure: a 7 years retrospective evaluation of survival and influencing factors. Dent Mater 2017;33(4):467-476.
• 80. Koc-Vural U, Kerimova L, Baltacioglu IH, Kiremitci A. Bond strangth of dental nanocomposites repaired with a bulk fill composite. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(3):e437-e42.
• 81. Uctasli MB, Can HE, Omurlu H. Amalgam restorasyonların değiştirilme nedenleri ve klinik ömürleri. A. Ü Diş Hek. Fak. Derg 2002;29:9-16.
• 82. Mjör IA, Shen L, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002;27(2):17-123.
• 83. Bogacki RE, Hunt RJ, del Aguila M, Smith WR. Survival analysis of posteriro restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent. 2002;27(5):488-492.
• 84. Hannig C, Laubach S, et al. Shear bond strength of repaired adhesive filling materials using different repair procedures. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(1):35-40.
• 85. Ozcan M, Pekkan G. Effect of different adhesion strategies on bond strength of resin composite to composite-dentin complex. Oper Dent 2013;38(1):63-72.
• 86. Loomans BA, Cardoso MV, Roeters FJ, Opdam NJ, De Munck J, Huysmans MC, et al. Is there one optimal technique for all composites? Dent Mater 2011;27(7):701-9.
• 87. Hemadri M,Saritha G, Rajasekhar V, Pachlag KA, Purushotham R, Reddy VK. Shear bond strength of repaired composites using surface treatments and repair materials: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(6):22-5.
• 88. Yokokawa M, Rikuta A, Tsujimoto A, Tsuchiya K, Shibasaki S, Matsuyoshi S, et al. Influence of methymercaptan on the repair bond strength of composites fabricated using selfetch adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 2015;123(1):46-52.
• 89. Yesilyurt Cemal, Kusgoz Adem, Bayram Mehmet, Ulker Mustafa. Initial Repair Bond Strength of a Nano-filled Hybrid Resin: Effect of Surface Treatments and Bonding Agents. J Esthet Restor Dent 2009;21:251-261.
• 90. Natália C Gutierrez, Sabrina E Moeeke, Taciana MF Caneppele, Leticia Ccc Perote, Graziella R Batista, Maria Frl Huhtalla, Carlos RG Torres. Bond strength of composite resin restoration repair: influence of silane and adhesive systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(8):880-886.
• 91. Mondelli J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A, De Lima Navarro, M. F. , Soares F. B. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:419-22.
• 92. Rudimar A Baldissera, Marcos B Corréa, Helena S Schuch, Kauê Collares, et al. Are there universal restorative composites for anterior and posterior teeth? J Dent 2013;41(11):1027-35.
• 93. Ernesto Borgia, Rosario Baron, Luis Borgia. Quality and survival of direct light-activated composite resin restorations in posterior teeth:a 5- to 20-year retrospective longitudinal study. J Prosthodont 2019;28(1):e195-e203.
• 94. Ali H, Abdin MJ, Akhter NJ, Hossain M. Nanohybrid and microfilled composite resin in class II restoration of permanent molar teeth. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Med Univ J. 2019;12:94-98.
• 95. Ferracane JL. Buonocore lecture. Placing dental composites- a stressful experience. Oper Dent 2008;33(3):247-57.
• 96. Cheng L, Xveir MD, Xu HH, Antonucci JM, Kraigsley FM, Lin NJ, et al. Antibacterial amoprhous calcium phosphate nano composites with a quaternary ammonium dimethacrylate and silver nanoparticles. Dent Mater 2012;28(5):561-72.
• 97. Handa K, Murakami N, Yamazaki T, Takahashi H, Wakabayashi N. The ball-on-disk cyclic wear of CAD/CAM machinable dental composite and ceramic materials. J Oral Sci 2017;59:589-96.
• 98. Tabassum ST, Hossain M, Gafur MA, Ali H, Abdin MJ, Moral MAA. Wear of nanohybrid and microfilled composite resin in occlusal restoration of first permanent molar tooth. Bengabandhu Sheikh Mujib Med Univ J. 2019;12:133-137.
• 99. Cetin AR, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Operative Dentistry 2013;38:E31-E41.
• 100. Ozakar-Ilday N, Zorba YO, Yildiz M, Erdem V, Seven N, Demirbuga S. Three year clinical performance of two indirect composite inlays compared to direct composite restorations. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;18(3):e521-e528.
• 101. Huth KC, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R, Manhart J. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students:result after 4 years. Journal of Dentistry 2011;39:478-88.
• 102. Leinfelder KF. Indirek posterior composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26:495-503.
• 103. İlday, A , Urvasızoğlu, A , Seven, P . " İndirekt kompozit inley restorasyonlar ile direkt kompozit restorasyonların mikrosızıntı yönünden karşılaştırılması". Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2009 (2009 ): 76-84.
• 104. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A. A comparison of stresses in molar teeth restored with inlays and direct restorations, including polymerization shrinkage of composite resin and tooth loading during mastication. Dental materials 2015;31:e77-e87.
• 105. Van Dijken JW. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11-year follow-up. J Dent 2000;28(5):299-306.
• 106. RA Bresser, D Genddle, IA van den Haijkant, LMA Sluiter-Poutvels, MS Cune, MMM Gresnigt. Up to 12 years clinical evaluation of 197 partial indirect restorations with deep margin elevation in the posterior region. J Dent 2019;91:103227.
• 107. Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres, Mariana Cintra Mailart, Érica Crastechini, Fernanda Alves Feitosa, et al. A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations used direct and semidirect techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(2):1053-1063.
• 108. Zaimoglu A, Can G. Sabit Protezler. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi;2004. P. 165-80.
• 109. De Veiga AM, Cunha AC, Ferreira DM, et al. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth:a systematic review and meta-analysis J Dent 2016;54(1):1-120.
• 110. Takashi Miyazaki, Yasuhiro Hotta, Jun Kunii, Soichi Kuriyama, Yukimichi Tamaki. A review of dental CAD/CAM:Current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):44-56.
• 111. Kawaguchi-Uemura A, Mine A, Matsumoto M, Tajiri Y, et al. Adhesion procedure of CAD/CAM resin crown bonding:reduction of bond strengths due to artificial saliva contamination. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:177-83.
• 112. Fatma A.Shembish, Hui Tong, Marina Kaizer, Malvin N.Janal, et al. Fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM resin composite molar crowns. Dental Materials 2016;32(4):499-509.
• 113. Johnson AC, Versius A, Tantbirojn D, Ahuja S. Fracture strength of CAD/CAM composite and composite-ceramic occlusal veneers. J Prosthodont Res 2014;58:107-14.
• 114. Berg JH & Croll TP(2015) Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update pediatric dentistry. 37(2), 116-124.
• 115. Loguercio AD & Reis A(2008) Application of a dental adhesive using the self-etch and etch-and-rinse approaches:an 18-month clinical evaluation. Journal of the American Dental Association 139(1) 53-61.
• 116. Thaynara Faelly Boing, Juliana Larocca de Geus, Leticia Maira Wambier, et al. Are glass-ionomer cement restorations in cervical lesions more long-lasting than resin-based composite resins? A systematic review and meta analysis. J Adhes dENT 2018;20:435-452.
• 117. A Szesz, S Parreiras, A Reis, A Loguercio. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self etch adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Dent. 53(2016) 1-11.
• 118. Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, Pashley DH. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of flüoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer(PRG) fillers. Dental Materials Journal2008;27(3):315-39.
• 119. Gonulol N, Ozer S, Sen Tunc E. Water sorption, solubility, and color stability of giomer restoratives. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 2015;27(5):300-6.
• 120. Geukins S, Goossens A. Occupational contact allergy to (meth)arcylates. Contact Dermatol,2001; 44: 153-9.
• 121. Menne-Happ U, Illie N. Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. J Dent 2013; 41:223-30.
• 122. Orözü Özgü İlkcan, Karadağlıoğlu Berk, Ulusoy Nuran. Güncel restoratif materyallerin oral biyofilme etkileri. Türkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci 2017; 23(2): 130-8.
• 123. Sud N, Gupta AK, Sharma V, Minocha A. Comperative evaluation of the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with mesio-occluso distal cavities restored with zirconomer, amalgam, composite and GIC: An in vitro study. Int J Res Health Allied Sci 2019; 5(1): 79-82.
• 124. Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH (2011) Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dental Materials 27(10) 1031-1037.
• 125. Çelik EU, Tunac AT, Yılmaz F(2018) A randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial evaluating the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions: two year results. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 20(4) 299-305.
• 126. Bagheri R, Plamara J, Mese A, Manton DJ(2017) Effect of a self adhesive coating on the load-bearing capacity of tooth-colored restorative materials. Australian Dental Journal 62(1) 71-78.
• 127. Tal E, Kupietzky A, Fuks AB, Tickotsky N, Moskovitz M (2017) Clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations in primary molars: a preliminary study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 41(4) 264-270.
• 128. Scholtanus JD & Huysmans MC (2007) Clinical failure of class II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6 year period: a retrospective study. Journal of Dentistry 35(2) 156-162.
• 129. Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3 year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2014; 18(3): 753-59.
• 130. H Balkaya, S Arslan. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative mterials in class II cavities. Operative Dentistry 2020; 45-1, E32-E42.
• 131. Pameijer CH, Garcia-Godoy F, Morrow BR, Jefferies SR. Flexural strangth and flexural fatigue properties of resin-modified glass ionomers. J Clin Dent 2015;26:23-7.
• 132. Gabriella Dos Santos Pinto, Luísa Jardim Correâ Oliveira, Ana Regina Romano, et al. Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth:results from a pediatric dental clinic. J Dent2014;42(10):1248-54.
• 133. G Pousette Lundgren, G Dahllöf. Outcome of restorative treatment in young patients with amelogenesis imperfecta. A cross-sectional, retrospective study. J Dent 2014;42(11):1382-9.
• 134. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin composites: A systematic review. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 962-70.
• 135. ADA Counilon Scientific Affairs. Direct and indirect restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 463-472.
• 136. Lambrechts P, Goovaerts P, Bharadway D, DeMunck J, Bergmans L, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Degradation of tooth structure and restorative materials: A review. Wear. 2006; 261: 980-986.
• 137. Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BAC. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 2-8.
• 138. Kovarik RE. Restoration of posterior teeth in clinical practice: evidence base for choosing amalgam versus composite. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2009; 53: 71-76.
• 139. Soares AC, Cavalheiro A. A review of amalgam and composite longevity of posterior restorations. Reu Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac 2010;51:155-164.
• 140. Vittorio Moraschini, Geung Ka Fai, Raphael Monte Alto, Gustavo Oliveira Dos Santos. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations:a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43(9):1043-1050.
• 141. NJM Opdam, EM Bronkhorst, BAL Loomans, MLDNJM Hujsmans. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010;89(10):1063-1067.
• 142. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Gomide HA, Araujo CA, Martins LR, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behaviour of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99: 114-22.
• 143. Mackert J&Wahl MJ. Are there acceptable alternatives to amalgam. Journal of the California Dental 2004; 32(7): 601-610.