Author:
Gupta Indra,Gupta Satyendra,Kothari Anjali
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Aim
To compare the retention of amalgam restorations in bonded amalgam restoration and restorations with undercuts.
Background
With improvement in adhesive technology problem associated with conventional preparation for amalgam restorations mainly compromised resistance form of tooth structure have been largely overcome.
Materials and methods
Forty caries free extracted molars were used. A basic box preparation was done proximally with buccoproximal and linguoproximal walls diverging at 45° angle and the axial wall is 1.3 mm in dentin.
Group 1 – Teeth with basic box preparation.
Group 2 – Teeth with box preparation for bonded amalgam.
Group 3 – Teeth with box preparation and proximal retention grooves.
Group 4 – Teeth with box preparation and occlusal dovetail.
Group 1, 3 and 4 were restored with silver amalgam and group 2 restored with resin-bonded amalgam. All samples were subjected to simulated occlusal load against marginal ridge using a blunt stainless steel point in an Instron testing machine. The force in kilogram required to dislodge the restorations as well as the type and location of failure were recorded.
Result
The main force required to dislodge the restoration was least in group 1 and 3 and maximum in group 2.
Conclusion
The in vitro study showed that the amalgam bonding technique, using an adhesive resin liner in proximal box form preparation, was more effective than either box form with proximal grooves or dovetails or proximal box only in providing resistance to displacement.
Clinical significance
Amalgam bonding eliminates the unnecessary removal of sound tooth structure during cavity preparations.
How to cite this article
Gupta I, Gupta S, Kothari A. Revisiting Amalgam: A Comparative Study between Bonded Amalgam Restoration and Amalgam Retained with Undercuts. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(3):164-170.
Publisher
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishing
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Dental Amalgam Update-Part I: Clinical Efficacy;Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry;2013-08-09