I -Tonn B and Ryge G: Clinical evaluation of composite resin restorations in primary molars: a 4-year follow-up study. JADA 117:603-606, 1988.
2 -Letzel H: Survival rates and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations in multicenter clinical trial. JDent 17:S10-S17, 1988.
3- Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2000 Nov-Dec;22(6):479-85.
4 -Yap AU, Chew CL, Ong LF, Teoh SH: Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 29:87-97, 2002.
5 -Yap AU, Tan SH, Wee SS, Lee CW, Lim EL, Zeng KY: Chemical degradation of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil. 28:1015-21, 2001.
6 -Baratieri LN, Ritter AV: Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique. J Esthet Restor Dent. 13:50-7, 2001.
7 -Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Monting JS: Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J Dent. 14:148-52, 2001.
8 -Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P. A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent. 28:111-6, 2000.
9 -Pesun IJ, Olson AK, Hodges JS, Anderson GC: In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 84:353-9, 2000.
10 -Wang NJ: Is amalgam in child dental care on its way out? Restorative materials used in children and adolescents in 1978 and 1995 in Norway. Community Dent Health. 17:97-101, 2000.
11 -Duncalf WV, Wilson NH: A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design. Quintessence Int. 31:347-52,2000.
12 -Feigal RJ: Advantages of new restorative materials in dental care for children. J Mich Dent Assoc. 81:32-6, 38, 1999.
13 -Berg JH: The continuum of restorative materials in pediatric dentistry--a review for the clinician. Pediatr Dent. 20:93-100, 1998.
14 -McWhorter AG, Seale NS: For a limited time only! Or treatment of temporary teeth in tots. Tex Dent J. 114:21-6, 1997.
15 -Christensen GJ: Restoration of pediatric posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc.127:106-8, 1996.
16 -Croll TP: Restorative dentistry for preschool children. Dent Clin North Am.39:737-70, 1995.
17 -Granath L, Schroder U, Sundin B: Clinical evaluation of preventive and class-I composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1992 Dec; 50(6): 359-64.
18 -Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G: Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J. 16:81-6, 1992.
19 -Barr-Agholme M, Oden A, Dahllof G, Modeer T: A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars. Dent Mater. 7:230-3, 1991.
20 -Dietschi D, Holz J: A clinical trial of four light-curing posterior composite resins: two-year report. Quintessence Int. 21:965-75, 1990.
21 -Vann WF Jr, Barkmeier WW, Mahler DB: Assessing composite resin wear in primary molars: four-year findings. J Dent Res. 67:876-9,1988.
22 -Leifler E, Varpio M: Proximoclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a two-year follow-up. ASDC J Dent Child. 48:411-6, 1981.
23 -Tonn EM, Ryge G, Chambers DW: A two-year clinical study of a carvable composite resin used as class II restorations in primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 47:405-13, 1980
24- Tinanoff N, Douglas JN: Clinical decision -making for caries management in primary teeth. J Dent Edu 65:1133-1142, 2001.
25- Cvar JF and Ryge G: Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative .materials. USPHS Publication n.790 p244, San Francisco: US Government Printing Office.
26 -Fuks AB, Holan G, Simon H and Levinstein I: Microleakage of class II glass- ionomer-silver restorations in primary molars. Operative Dent 17:62-69, 1992.
27- Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Donly KJ, Cervantes M: Reliability of Different Techniques to Assess Marginal Defects of Class II Restorations in Retrieved Primary Molars: a visual-tactile, SEM, dye penetration and polarized light microscopy study. The Journal of the Israel Dental Association 19:6-16, 2002.