Citation Information :
Chavan A, Darak P, Vallabhaneni S, Shenvi S. Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Four Different Materials in the Repair of Amalgam Restorations: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (7):741-747.
Aim: This study was aimed to compare the microleakage of amalgam restorations repaired with bonded amalgam, composite resin, ormocer, and glass ionomer restorative material. Materials and methods: Sixty extracted maxillary human premolars were prepared and restored with class I amalgam. A simulated defect was prepared that included the cavosurface margin on restorations, and the premolars were assigned to four treatment groups (n = 15): In group I, premolars were treated by bonded amalgam; in group II, premolars were repaired with composite resin; in group III, premolars were repaired by ormocer; and in group IV, premolars were repaired with glass ionomer restorative material. The teeth were immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution, thermocycled, sectioned longitudinally, and then blindly observed under a stereomicroscope by three trained examiners. Microleakage was evaluated using a 0–4 scale for dye penetration, and data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U-test. Results: The microleakage values were more in the group repaired with glass ionomer restorative material and the Chi-squared test showed no significant difference in between the groups repaired with bonded amalgam, composite resin, and ormocer, but showed significant difference between the groups repaired with ormocer and glass ionomer restorative materials and between composite resin and glass ionomer restorative materials. Conclusion: None of the restorative techniques evaluated were able to completely eliminate marginal microleakage. Clinical significance: The results seem to be favorable within the limits of the in vitro conditions of the present study; however, the in vivo conditions are the best for clinically relevant findings.
Eliades G, Eliades T, Brantley WA, et al. Dental materials in vivo aging and related phenomena. 2003. 61–77.
Moncada G, Fernández E, MartínC, et al. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial. Oper Dent 2008;33(3):258–264. DOI: 10.2341/07-113.
Baratieri LN, Monteiro JS, Andrada MA. Amalgam repair: a case report. Quintessence Int 1992;23(8):527–531.
Popoff DAV, Gonçalves FS, Magalhães CS, et al. Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: A microleakage study. J Dent Res 2011;22(6):799–803. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.94672.
Jain. P. Ormocer: bio-compatible replacement for amalgam, composites and compomers. J Conserv Dent 2001;4:79–83.
Gupta SK, Gupta J, Saraswathi V, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: an in vitro study. J Interdiscip Dent 2012;2(3):164–169. DOI: 10.4103/2229-5194.113245.
Shivanna V, Aswini TS. Evaluation of microleakage in class I amalgam composite compound restoration at the three different interfaces - an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2003;6:107–110.
Hadavi F, Hey JH, Ambrose ER, et al. Effect of different adhesive systems on microleakage at the amalgam/composite resin interface. Oper Dent 1993;18(1):2–7.
Mahler DB, Bryant RW. Microleakage of amalgam alloys: an update. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(9):1351–1356. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0446.
Sharma S, Padda BK, Choudhary V. Comparative evaluation of residual monomer content and polymerization shrinkage of a packable composite and an ormocer. J Conserv Dent 2012;15(2):161–165. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.94592.
Silva AF, Piva E, Demarco FF, et al. Microleakage in conventional and bonded amalgam restorations: influence of cavity volume. Oper Dent 2006;31(3):377–383. DOI: 10.2341/05-49.
Davis R, Overton JD. Efficacy of bonded and nonbonded amalgam in the treatment of teeth with incomplete fractures. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131(4):469–478. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0203.
Holan G, Chosack A, Eidelman E. Clinical evaluation of class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months. J Dent Child 1996;63(5):341–345.
Franchi M, Breschi L, Ruggeri O. Cusp fracture resistance in composite – amalgam combined restorations. J Dent 1999;27(1):47–52. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(98)00020-7.
Royse MC, Ott MW, Mathieu GP. Dentin adhesive superior to copal varnish in preventing microleakage in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 1996;18(7):440–443.
Maroney WF, Blank LW, Hargrave JW, et al. Microleakage at the etched amalgam/composite resin interface of etched-metal resin-bonded retainers. Gen Dent 1988;36(1):18–19.
Cardash HS, Bichacho N, Imber S, et al. A combined amalgam and composite resin restoration. J Prosthet Dent 1990;65(5):502–505. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90065-k.
Hadavi F, Hey JH, Czech D, et al. Assessing microleakage at the junction between amalgam and composite resin to amalgam: a new in vitro method. Oper Dent 1991;16(1):6–12.
Hoshi AT, Bonifacio DA, Silva SM, et al. In vitro evaluation of the marginal microleakage of amalgam restorations associated with dentin adhesive, glass ionomer cement and cavity varnish by means of different evaluating methods. J Appl Oral Sci 2005;13(1):10–14. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572005000100003.
Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, et al. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(11):1529–1536. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006. 0087.
Gerdolle DA, Mortier MS, Droz MS. Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials. J Dent Child 2008;75(2):125–133.
