AkcoraPLiuHKumarSKMollJLBrenicewiczBCSchadlerLS. (2009). Anisotropic self-assembly of spherical polymer-grafted nanoparticles. Nat Mater8:354-359.
2.
BaderJDLeeJYShugarsDABurrusBBWetterhallS (2011). Clinical technical performance of dental therapists in Alaska. J Am Dent Assoc142:322-326.
3.
BanerjeeAPabariHPaolinelisGThompsonIDWatsonTF (2011). An in vitro evaluation of selective demineralised enamel removal using bio-active glass air abrasion. Clin Oral Investig15:895-900.
4.
BayneSC (2012). Correlation of clinical performance with ‘in vitro tests’ of restorative dental materials that use polymer-based matrices. Dent Mater28:52-71.
5.
BertassoniLEHabelitzSMarshallSJMarshallGW (2011). Mechanical recovery of dentin following remineralization in vitro – an indentation study. J Biomech44:176-181.
6.
BlackmanBRKKinlochAJSanchezFSRTeoWSWilliamsJG (2013). The fracture behaviour of structural adhesives under high rates of testing. Eng Fract Mech76:2868-2889.
7.
CoulterIYamamotoJMMarcusMFreedJDer-MartirosianCGuzman-BecerraN. (2004). Self-reported oral health of enrollees in capitated and fee-for-service dental benefit plans. J Am Dent Assoc135:1606-1615.
8.
DittanetPPearsonRA (2013). Effect of bimodal particle size distributions on the toughening mechanisms in silica nanoparticle filled epoxy resin. Polymer54:1832-1845.
9.
ErbRMLibanoriRRothfuchsNStudartAR (2012). Composites reinforced in three dimensions by using low magnetic fields. Science335:199-204.
10.
FanPLBatchuHChouHNGasparacWSandrikJMeyerDM (2002). Laboratory evaluation of amalgam separators. J Am Dent Assoc133:577-584.
11.
FreemanRLushCMacgillveraySThemessl-HuberMRichardsD (2013). Dental therapists/hygienists working in remote-rural primary care: a structured review of effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, acceptability and affordability. Int Dent J63:103-112.
12.
GawkrodgerDJ (2005). Investigation of reactions to dental materials. Br J Dermatol153:479-485.
13.
GlickMMonteirodaSilvaOSeebergerGKXuTPuccaGWilliamsDM. (2012). FDI Vision 2020: shaping the future of oral health. Int Dent J62:278-291.
14.
GowerLB (2008). Biomimetic model systems for investigating the amorphous precursor and pathway and its role in biomineralization. Chem Rev108:4551-4627.
15.
HiltBSvendsenKSyversenTAasOQvenildTSletvoldH. (2009). Occurrence of cognitive symptoms in dental assistants with previous occupational exposure to metallic mercury. Neurotoxicology30:1202-1206.
16.
HosseinpoorARItaniLPetersenPE (2012). Socio-economic inequality in oral healthcare coverage: results from the World Health Survey. J Dent Res91:275-281.
LiuJHowardGDLewisSHBarrosMDStansburyJW (2012). A study of shrinkage stress reduction and mechanical properties of nanogel-modified resin systems. Eur Polym J48:1819-1828.
19.
MoraesRRGarciaJWBarrosMDLewisSHPfeiferCSLiuJ. (2011). Control of polymerization shrinkage and stress in nanogel-modified monomer and composite materials. Dent Mater27:509-519.
20.
OrtonDIWilkinsonJD (2004). Cosmetic allergy: incidence, diagnosis, and management. Am J Clin Dermatol5:327-337.
PetersenPEBourgeoisDOgawaHEstupinan-DaySNdiayeC (2005). The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organization83:661-669.
23.
ReinhardtJW (1988). Risk assessment of mercury exposure from dental amalgams. J Public Health Dent48:172-177.
24.
WHO (2003). The World Oral Health Report 2003: Continuous Improvement of Oral Health in the 21st Century - the Approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Geneva: WHO. URL accessed on 6/10/2013 at: http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/report03/en/index.html
