The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 5 ( October, 2010 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Clinical Evaluation of Bonded Amalgam Restorations in Endodontically Treated Premolar Teeth: A One-Year Evaluation

Horieh Moosavi, Farzaneh Ahrari, Mahsima Nojoomian

Citation Information : Moosavi H, Ahrari F, Nojoomian M. Clinical Evaluation of Bonded Amalgam Restorations in Endodontically Treated Premolar Teeth: A One-Year Evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11 (5):9-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-5-9

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-10-2010

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this clinical study was to compare the fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and rate of recurrent caries of bonded and nonbonded amalgam restorations in endodontically treated premolar teeth.

Methods and Materials

A total of 36 patients with endodontically treated maxillary first or second premolars were selected and divided into three groups. The treatments in all groups consisted of lingual cusp coverage and cementation of a prefabricated intracanal post (No. 2 long, Dentatus USA, New York, NY, USA). One type of cavity liner was used for each group as follows: copal varnish (Group A), Amalgambond Plus (Group B), and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (Group C). The teeth were then restored with Cinalux high-copper spherical amalgam (Cinalux, Sh. Dr Faghihi Dental Co., Tehran, Iran). After one year, fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries were evaluated. Fischer's exact test was used for statistical analysis using a 0.05 percent significance level.

Results

There was no significant difference among groups with respect to fracture resistance (p=0.49). However, significant differences in marginal adaptation existed among the three groups (p=0.02) and no recurrent caries were found in any of the restored teeth.

Conclusion

Bonding amalgam restorations using Amalgambond Plus and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus did not improve the fracture resistance or affect the resistance to secondary caries in endodontically treated premolar teeth. However, the teeth in both these bonded groups showed significant improvement in marginal adaptation compared with restorations placed with copal varnish (p=0.02).

Clinical Significance

Amalgambond Plus or Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive resins significantly improved marginal adaptation of amalgam compared with copal varnish, but did not enhance fracture resistance or affect the prevention of secondary caries.

Citation

Ahrari F, Nojoomian M, Moosavi H. Clinical Evaluation of Bonded Amalgam Restorations in Endodontically Treated Premolar Teeth: A One-Year Evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 October; 11(5):009-016. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/ view/volume11-issue5-moosavi


PDF Share
  1. Dental materials: properties and manipulation. 8th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2004. p. 229-50.
  2. Microleakage in conventional and bonded amalgam restorations: influence of cavity volume. Oper Dent. 2006; 31(3):377-83.
  3. Bonding of amalgam to tooth structure: tensile adhesion and microleakage tests. J Prosthet Dent. 1988; 59(4):397-402.
  4. Two-year clinical evaluation of an amalgam adhesive. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128(3):309-14.
  5. Effect of bonding amalgam on the reinforcement of teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93(1):51-5.
  6. Short-term evaluation of resin sealing and rebonding on amalgam microleakage: an SEM observation. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008; 9(3):32-9.
  7. Effect of Amalgambond on cervical sensitivity. Am J Dent. 1995; 8(6):283-4.
  8. Six-year clinical evaluation of bonded and pin-retained complex amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(3):261-8.
  9. Support of undermined occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32(4):287-91.
  10. Fracture strength of restored premolars. Am J Dent. 2007; 20(2):121-4.
  11. Short-term clinical evaluation of post-operative sensitivity with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent. 1998; 11(4):177-80.
  12. Criteria for clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Public Health Service, publication 790. San Francisco: Government Printing Office; 1971.
  13. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 99(1):30-7.
  14. Effect of bonded restorations on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth. Int Endod J. 2006; 39(11):900-4.
  15. Fracture resistance of premolars with MOD amalgam restorations lined with Amalgambond. Oper Dent. 1994; 19(1):2-6.
  16. The influence of an adhesive system on shear bond strength of repaired high-copper amalgams. Oper Dent. 1991; 16(5):175-80.
  17. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with the bonded amalgam technique. Oper Dent. 2001; 26(5):511-5.
  18. Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice. Br Dent J. 2009;206(2):E3; discussion 88-9.
  19. [Durability of bonding between 4-META/MMA-TBB resin to dentin pretreated with 10-3. The effect of 10-3 pretreating period and subsequent glutaraldehyde treatment]. Shika Zairyo Kikai. 1990; 9(6):831-40.
  20. Identification of a resin-dentin hybrid layer in vital human dentin created in vivo: durable bonding to vital dentin. Quintessence Int. 1992; 23(2):135-41.
  21. One-year clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996; 127(3):345-9.
  22. Microleakage of amalgam restorations using Amalgambond and Copalite. Am J Dent. 1992; 5(6):296-8.
  23. Experimental use of a bonding agent to reduce marginal microleakage in amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int. 1987; 18(11):783-7.
  24. Microleakage of different amalgams bonded with dual cure resin cements. SADJ. 2007;62(2):056, 058-61.
  25. Microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials. Braz Dent J. 2004; 15(1):13-8.
  26. Microleakage in primary teeth restored by conventional or bonded amalgam technique. Braz Dent J. 2001; 12(3):197-200.
  27. Placement and replacement of amalgam restorations: a challenge for the profession. Oper Dent. 1987; 12(3):105-12.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.