HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scherf, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scherf, R. R.

I enjoyed Dr. Gordon Christensen’s November JADA column, "Remaining Challenges With Class II Resin-Based Composite Restorations" ( JADA 2007;138[11]:1487–9[Free Full Text] ). An additional property that Dr. Christensen did not mention is the significant reduction of dentin bond strength in vivo compared with manufacturers’ testing in vitro. This becomes an issue at the base of the interproximal box preparation when the cervical border has a thin line of remaining enamel or none at all to which to bond.

In my opinion, the better material to use for core reinforcement for crowns is bonded amalgam. The material is kinder to the pulp, and it remains in place as the tooth is prepared for a crown. These are some of the reasons I cannot recommend resin restorations to all my patients in all their areas to be restored.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scherf, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scherf, R. R.