Dental UpdateVol. 47, No. 7 CommentEnhancing adhesive restoration effectivenessTrevor BurkeTrevor BurkeSearch for more papers by this authorTrevor BurkePublished Online:30 Jul 2020https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2020.47.7.545AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References 1 Burke FJT, MacKenzie L, Sands P. Suggestions for non-aerosol or reduced-aerosol restorative dentistry (for as long as is necessary). Dent Update 2020; 47: 485–493. Link, Google Scholar2 Shaw K, Martins R, Hadis MA, Burke FJT, Palin WM. “Own label” versus branded commercial dental resin composite materials: mechanical and physical property comparison. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016; 24: 122–129. Medline, Google Scholar3 Mickenautsch S. How well are GIC product labels related to current systematic review evidence? Dent Update 2011; 38: 634–644. Link, Google Scholar4 Johnsen GF, LeThieu MIC, Hussain B et al.. Own brand label restorative materials – a false bargain? J Dent 2017; 56: 84–98. Medline, Google Scholar5 Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. A practice-based assessment of patients' knowledge of dental materials. Br Dent J 2015; 219: 577–582. Medline, Google Scholar6 Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. A practice-based clinical evaluation of VOCO Ionolux. The Dentist 2017; Sept: 124–128. Google Scholar7 Stewardson DA, Creanor S, Thornley P, Biggs T. Burke FJT et al.. The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival. Br Dent J 2012; 212: E14. Medline, Google Scholar8 Burke FJT, Mackenzie L, Shortall ACC. Survival rates of resin composite restorations in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth. Dent Update 2019; 46: 524–536. Link, Google Scholar9 Miletic I, Baraba A, Basso M et al.. Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system compared with a resin composite in the posterior region: results of a 2-year multicenter study. J Adhes Dent 2020; 22: 235–247. Medline, Google Scholar10 Inoue S, Van Meerbeck B, Abe Y et al.. Effect of remaining dentine thickness and the use of conditioner on micro-tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 445–455. Medline, Google Scholar11 Sauro S, Watson TF, Thompson I et al.. Influence of air-abrasion executed with polyacrylic acid-Bioglass 45S5 on the bonding performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Eur J Oral Sci 2012; 120: 168–177. Medline, Google Scholar12 da Rosa WL de O, Piva E, da Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43: 765–776. Medline, Google Scholar13 Zanatta RF, Silva TM, Esper Malr, BrescianiE, Goncalves Sep, Caneppele Tmf. Bonding performance of simplified adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions at 2-year follow-up: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 2019; 44: 476–487. Medline, Google Scholar14 Cuevas-Suarez CE, da Rosa WL de O, Lund RG, da Silva AF, Piva E. Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2019; 21: 7–26. Medline, Google Scholar15 Dal-Bianco K, Pellizzaro A, Patzlaft R et al.. Effects of moisture degree and rubbing action on the immediate resin-dentin bond strength. Dent Mater 2006; 12: 1150–1156. Google Scholar16 Loguercio A, Munos MA, Lugue-Martinez I et al.. Does active application of universal adhesives to enamel in self-etch mode improve their performance? J Dent 2015; 43: 1060–1070. Medline, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byTechnique tips: Ten top tips to overcome common mistakes concerning the use of dental materialsStephen J Bonsor25 September 2021 | Dental Update, Vol. 48, No. 8 2 July 2020Volume 47Issue 7ISSN (print): 0305-5000ISSN (online): 2515-589X Metrics History Published online 30 July 2020 Published in print 2 July 2020 Information© George Warman Publications (UK) LimitedPDF download