The Effect of Different Adhesive Systems on the Retention Strength of Bonded Amalgam Restorations
Horieh Moosavi, Marjaneh Ghavamnasiri
Citation Information :
Moosavi H, Ghavamnasiri M. The Effect of Different Adhesive Systems on the Retention Strength of Bonded Amalgam Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (2):97-104.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of bonded amalgam to dentin when unfilled and filled adhesive systems are employed using different application modes and to compare the adhesives with a cavity varnish and unlined restorations.
Methods and Materials
One hundred twenty sound third human molar teeth were used in the study. A cylindrical cavity 3.3 mm in diameter was prepared in a cross section of dentin approximately 3.0 mm in thickness. The specimens were divided into six experimental groups (n=20) according to the cavity liner used in the prepared cylindrical cavity: One Coat Bond™ (O), Scotchbond Multi-Purpose™(S), Panavia 21™ (Pa), PQ1™ (P), Copalite™ (C), and the unlined (U) group which served as the control group. Cavity surfaces were treated with the assigned adhesive/liner according to manufacturer's instructions then restored with amalgam. After storage in saline solution for seven days at 370C, the specimens were subjected to a push-out test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The mode of failure was assessed by microscopic analysis of the fracture sites. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan Multiple range tests (α=0.05).
Results
No significant difference in amalgam-dentin bond strength was found among O (23.47 MPa), S (21.02 MPa), and Pa (20.06 MPa) adhesive groups, but there was a significant difference between each of these groups and the P and C groups. The U group exhibited significantly lower retention than the other groups (P<0.05).
Conclusion
Different bond strengths were observed with the different types of dentin bonding agents and liners employed. The lowest bond strength was seen in the U group.
Clinical Significance
A statistically significant difference in bond strength was observed with O, S, and Pa compared to P, but this finding is not sufficient to rely on the bonding of amalgam to dentin, particularly in complex amalgam restorations.
Citation
Ghavamnasiri M, Moosavi H. The Effect of Different Adhesive Systems on the Retention Strength of Bonded Amalgam Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 February;(9)2:097-104.
Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Oper Dent 2000; 25:121-9.
Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results. Oper Dent 2000; 25:512-9.
Comparison of retentiveness of amalgam bonding agent types. Oper Dent 1997; 22:200-8.
Fracture resistance of teeth with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent 1994; 7:91-4.
Comparative S.E.M. observation of classical and bonded amalgam restorations. Eur Cell Mater 2005;10. Suppl. 1:34.
Amalgam shear bond strength to dentin using single-bottle primer/adhesive systems. Am J Dent 1999; 12:222-6.
Retentive strength of an amalgam bonding agent: chemical vs light vs dual curing. Oper Dent 2000; 25:505-11.
Bonded amalgam restorations: microleakage and tensile bond strength evaluation. Oper Dent 2005; 30:228-33.
Current concept on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol & Med 1997; 8:306-35.
Adhesive liner incorporation in dental amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int 1997; 28:49-55.
Bonding amalgam to dentin: Bond strength, marginal adaptation, and micromorphology of the coupling zone. Am J Dent 1998; 11:61-6.
Enamel and dentin bond strengths of single application bonding systems. Am J Dent 2001; 14:361-6.
The effect of local interfacial geometry on the measurement of the tensile bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res 1991; 70:889-93.
Shear bond strengths of six bonding systems using the push-out method of in vitro testing. Oper Dent 1998; 23:69-76.
The determination of shear strength. A method using a micro-punch apparatus. Br Dent J 1971; 130:333-7.
Bond strengths and SEM morphology of dentin-amalgam adhesives. Am J Dent 1997; 10:152-8.
Shear bond strength of four filled dentin bonding systems. Oper Dent 2001; 26:44-7.
Shear bond strength of a 4-META adhesive system. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67:42-5.
Use of phosphoric acid etchants with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose. Am J Dent 1993; 6:88-90.
Effect of resin primer solvents and surface wetness on resin composite bond strength to dentin. Am J Dent 1992; 5:213-5
Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1992; 71:1530-40.
Bonded amalgam restorations. Aust Dent J 1994; 39:128.
Incorporation of adhesive liners in amalgam: Effect on compressive strength and creep. Am J Dent 1991; 4:184-7.
Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004; 83:454-8.
Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent 2001;Suppl. 6:119-44.
Inhibition of caries around amalgam restorations by amalgam bonding Abstract [1562]. J Dent Res 1988; 67:308.
Microleakage of amalgam alloys: An update. J Am Dent Assoc 1996; 127:1351-6.
Effect of lining materials on shear bond strength of amalgam and gallium alloy restorations. Oper Dent 1998; 23:113-20.
Shear bond strength of resin-mediated amalgam-dentin attachment after cycling loading. Oper Dent 1995;20:236-40.
