Citation Information :
Reza D, Maryam T, Bardia V, Arash P, Azadeh KZ, Chalakinia H. Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Different Instruments in the Removal of Amalgam Overhang: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (3):335-340.
Aim: Overhang is the extension of restorative material beyond the cavity preparation. It changes sulcus microflora into organisms conducive to chronic periodontitis. After overhang removal the gingival index and microflora return to a healthy state. This can also improve access for dental plaque removal. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different instruments in association with amalgam overhang removal.
Materials and methods: One hundred thirty-five intact premolars were selected. The teeth were restored with amalgam such that restorations had 1 mm overhangs. Overhangs were removed employing three different instruments in three groups: sickle scaler, ultrasonic scaler, and diamond flame bur. A stereomicroscope was utilized to evaluate both the level of smoothness in the restored area, tooth damage and probable gaps. The data were analyzed using post hoc and Chi-square.
Results: The minimum and maximum time of removal were respectively obtained by ultrasonic scaler and sickle scaler, which was statistically significant (p <0.0001). Also, smoothness of the restored area in the sickle scaler group was significantly less than the other methods (p <0.0001).The percentage of tooth damage in the diamond flame bur group was significantly greater than the others (p <0.0001). The data concerning gap size showed no significant difference.
Conclusion: Ultrasonic scaler causes no significant damage to the tooth during an overhang removal procedure. In addition, it offers an acceptable level of surface smoothness in restorations and decreases the required time for overhang removal.
Clinical significance: Ultrasonic scaler can be recommended as an effective instrument for amalgam overhang removal.
Nunn ME. Understanding the etiology of periodontitis: an overview of periodontal risk factors. Periodontology 2000. 2003;32(1):11-23.
Brunsvold MA, Lane JJ. The prevalence of overhanging dental restorations and their relationship to periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol. 1990;17(2):67-72.
Diniz M, Cordeiro R, Ferreira-Zandona A. Detection of caries around amalgam restorations on approximal surfaces. Oper Dent. 2016;41(1):34-43.
Sirajuddin S, Narasappa KM, Gundapaneni V, et al. Suppl 1: M11: Iatrogenic Damage to Periodontium by Restorative Treatment Procedures: An Overview. Open Dent J. 2015;9:217.
Kheyzaran B, Nasim HS, Mohsen A, et al. Evaluation the Overhang Rate in Class II Amalgam Restorations among Bandar Abbas Patients in 2015. Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science. 2018;6(1):151-156.
Al-Abdaly MMA, Khawshal AAQ, Alqisi AY, et al. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Marginal Bone Loss and Periodontal Parameters after Various Dental Reconstruction Procedures. International Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2018;9(1):39.
Moncada GC, Martin J, Fernandez E, et al. Alternative treatments for resin-based composite and amalgam restorations with marginal defects: a 12-month clinical trial. General Dentistry. 2006;54(5):314.
Yasar F, Yesilova E, Akgünlü F. Alveolar bone changes under overhanging restorations. Clinical oral investigations. 2010;14(5): 543-549.
Gupta S, Govila V, Sharma M, et al. Periodontal Restorative Inter-Relationship: A Review. Journal Of Applied Dental and Medical Sciences. 2015;1(3):142-150.
Estay J, Martín J, Viera V, et al. 12 Years of Repair of Amalgam and Composite Resins: A Clinical Study. Operative dentistry. 2018;43(1):12-21.
Gordan VV, Riley JL, Blaser PK, et al. Alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations: results of a seven-year clinical study. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2011;142(7):842-849.
Moncada G, Vildósola P, Fernández E, et al. Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations. Operative dentistry. 2015;40(1):34-43.
Brunton PA, Cowan AJ. A technique for the removal of restoration overhangs and finishing and polishing of restoration and preparation margins. Quintessence International. 2001;32(10).
Molina GO, Oliveira MT, Molina RO, et al. Sonic, ultrasonic and manual instruments in the control of periodontal disease: an in vitro evaluation. Journal of Research in Dentistry. 2013;1(3):263-272.
Aminian R, Ghassemi A, Shahali F. Prevalence of overhang in tooth-colored restorations conducted in operative department of Shahid Beheshti dental school: 2001-2002. Shahid Beheshti University Dental Journal. 2006;24(1):8-13.
Chan D, Chung AK. Management of Idiopathic Subgingival Amalgam Hypertrophy–The Common Amalgam Overhang. Operative dentistry. 2009;34(6):753-758.
Lim K, Ong G. Methods of proximal amalgam overhang removal–a comparison of different techniques. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1989;18:599-602.
Spinks GC, Carson RE, Hancock EB, et al. An SEM study of overhang removal methods. Journal of periodontology. 1986;57(10):632-636.
Vale JDF, Caffesse RG. Removal of amalgam overhangs: A profilometric and scanning electron microscopic evaluation. Journal of periodontology. 1979;50(5):245-249.
Chan KC, Edie JW, Svare CW. Scanning electron microscope study of marginal adaptation of amalgam in restoration finishing techniques. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1977;38(2):165-168.
ØILO G. Adaptation of amalgams to cavity walls. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 1976;3(3):227-236.
Saltzberg D, Ceravolo F, Holstein F, et al. Scanning electron microscope study of the junction between restorations and gingival cavosurface margins. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1976;36(5):517-522.