SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

Kemomekanik Çürük Uzaklaştırma Yöntemleri ve Etkinliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi

GÜNSELİ KATIRCI
R. Banu ERMİŞ
Pages
56–61
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗

Özet

Özet

🔖

Cite This Article

KATIRCI, G., ERMİŞ, R. B. (2017). Kemomekanik Çürük Uzaklaştırma Yöntemleri ve Etkinliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 56–61. https://ajindex.com/articles/360383

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Neves AA, Eduardo C, Cardoso MV, Van Meerbeek B. Current concepts and techniques for caries excavation and adhesion to residual dentin. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13 (1): 7-22.
  2. Ziskind D, Kupietzky A, Beyt N. First-choice treatment alternatives for caries removal using the chemomechanical method. Quintessence Int 2005;36(1):9-14. Nikiforuk G. The Caries Process-Morphological and Chemical events. In: Understanding Dental Caries 1 Etiology and Mechanism Basic and Clinical Aspects. Switzerland: Karger, 1985: 261-288. Fusayama T. A Simple Pain-Free Adhesive Restorative System by Minimal Reduction and Total Etching. St Louis: Ishiyaku EuroAmerica Inc, 1993: 1-21.
  3. Lai G, Zhu L, Xu X, Kunzelmann K-H. An in vitro comparison of fluorescence-aided caries excavation and conventional excavation by microhardness testing. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18(2): 599-605.
  4. Banerjee A, Watson FT, Kidd EAM. Dentine caries excavation: a review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 2000; 188(9): 476-482.
  5. Boob RA, Manjula M, Reddy RE, Srilaxmi N, Rani T. Evaluotion of the efficiency and effectiveness of three minimaly invasive methods of caries removal: An in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014; 7(1):11-18. Magalhães CS, Moreira AN, Campos WR, Rossi FM, Castilho GA, Ferreira RC. Effectiveness and efficiency of chemomechanical carious dentin removal. Braz Dent J 2006; 17(1): 63-7.
  6. Kirzioglu Z, Gurbuz T, Yilmaz Y. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical and mechanical caries removal: status of the restorations at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Clin Oral Investig 2007; 11(1): 69-76.
  7. Bussadori SK, Castro LC, Galvão AC. Papain gel: a new chemo-mechanical caries removal agent. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005; 30(2): 115-9.
  8. Inglehart MR, Peters MC, Flamenbaum MH, Eboda NN, Feigal RJ. Chemomechanical caries removal in children: an operator’s and pediatric patients’ responses. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(1): 47-55.
  9. Yazici AR, Atílla P, Ozgünaltay G, Müftüoglu S. In vitro comparison of the efficacy of Carisolv and conventional rotary instrument in caries removal. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30(12): 1177-1182.
  10. Hahama H, Yiu C, Burrow M. Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods. Australian Dental Journal 2014; 59(4):446-456.
  11. Maragakis MG, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Chemomechanical caries removal: a comprehensive rewiev of the literature. Int Dent J 2002; 51(4): 291-299
  12. Kımar J, Nayak M, Prasad KL, Gupta N. A comparative study of the clinical efficiency of chemomechanical caries removal using Carisolv and Papacarie-