scholarly journals No evidence supports differences in clinical performance of ceramic inlays and other posterior restorations

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-31
Author(s):  
Asbjørn Jokstad
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-300
Author(s):  
Hassan Hassanein ◽  
Mai Akah ◽  
Heba Hamza ◽  
Mona M Eissa ◽  
Mai M Yousry ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 123 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-70
Author(s):  
Samantha Jéssica Lopes Sousa ◽  
Deborah Lousan do Nascimento Poubel ◽  
Liliana Vicente Melo de Lucas Rezende ◽  
Fabiana Tolentino Almeida ◽  
Isabela Porto de Toledo ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
pp. 44-45
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohamed Elmarakby

Ceramic inlays, composite inlay-onlays and porcelain or zircon laminate veneers relay to a great extent on the acceptable clinical performance of adhesive luting as it considered the weakest point of the indirect restoration. Although most authors augment the opinion that bonding to enamel is more predictable and has better bond strength than bonding to dentin substrate, but it cannot completely depend on good enamel bond as a process of success of luting adhesive. An additional dentin bond is important not only for improvement the over-all bond strength but also to decrease postoperative hypersensitivities.


1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Martin ◽  
N.M. Jedynakiewicz

1996 ◽  
Vol 127 (8) ◽  
pp. 1171-1181 ◽  
Author(s):  
HARALD O. HEYMANN ◽  
STEPHEN C. BAYNE ◽  
JOHN R. STURDEVANT ◽  
ALDRIDGE D. WILDER ◽  
THEODORE M. ROBERSON

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document