1. Bharti R , Wadhwani KK , Tikku AP , Chandra A : Dental amalgam: An update.
J Conserv Dent, 13:204-208, 2010.
2. A.C.O.S. AFFAIRS : Dental amalgam: Update on safety concerns.
J Am Dent Assoc, 129:494-503, 1998.
3. Kaur M , Mann NS , Jhamb A , Batra D : A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement: An in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci, 5:5-9, 2019.
4. Patki B : Direct permanent restoratives-amalgam vs composite.
J Evol Med Dent Sci, 46:8912-8918, 2013.
5. Samanta S , Kumar U , Mitra A : Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and cention N. Imp J Interdiscip Res, 3:180-183, 2017.
6. Jagvinder M , Sunakshi S , Sonal M , Ashok S : Cention N: A review. Int Cur Res, 10:69111-69112, 2018.
8. Debolina C , Chiranjan G , Priti D : Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and cention-N restoration in class II cavity. J Dent Med Sci, 17:52-56, 2018.
9. Kumari CM , Bhat KM , Bansal R : Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy.
J Conserv Dent, 19:56-62, 2018.
10. Setty A , Nagesh J , Ashwathappa GS ,
et al. : Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N with Filtek Z350 XT: In vitro study.
Int J Oral Care and Res, 7:15-17, 2019.
11. Bollen CM , Lambrechts P , Quirynen M : Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.
Dent Mater, 13:258-269, 1997.
12. Rai R , Gupta R : In vitro evaluation of the effect of two finishing and polishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials.
J Conserv Dent, 16:564-567, 2013.
13. Wilder AD Jr, Swift EJ Jr, McDougal RA ,
et al. : Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials.
J Dent, 28:367-373, 2000.
14. An JS , Kim K , Ahn SJ ,
et al. : Compositional differences in multi-species biofilms formed on various orthodontic adhesives.
Eur J Orthod, 39:528-533, 2017.
15. Svanberg M , Mjör IA , Ørstavik D : Mutans Streptococci in plaque from margins of amalgam, composite, and glassionomer restorations.
J Dent Res, 69:861-864, 1990.
16. de Fúcio SB , Puppin-Rontani RM , Garcia-Godoy F ,
et al. : Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials.
Am J Dent, 22:131-136, 2009.
17. Gama-Teixeira A , Simionato MR , Luz MA ,
et al. : Streptococcus mutans-induced secondary caries adjacent to glass ionomer cement, composite resin and amalgam restorations in vitro.
Braz Oral Res, 21:368-374, 2007.
18. Eick S , Glockmann E , Brandl B , Pfister W : Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to various restorative materials in a continuous flow system.
J Oral Rehabil, 31:278-285, 2004.
19. Gupta N , Jaiswal S , Bansal P ,
et al. : Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite.
J Conserv Dent, 22:296-299, 2019.
20. Bayrak GD , Sandalli N , Kulekci G ,
et al. : Effect of two different polishing systems on fluoride release, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of newly developed restorative materials.
J Esthet Restor Dent, 29:424-434, 2017.