A combined amalgam and composite resin restoration

Cardash, Harold S.; Bichacho, N; Imber, S; Liberman, R.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(90)90065-k

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These hybrid restorations have been used for several years in extended or deep cavities. 25,26 A combination of favorable properties of two direct restorative materials may provide good esthetic results on both the labial and the occlusal aspects of extended or deep amalgam restorations. 27,28 A promising single-appointment technique for restoring nonvital maxillary premolars consists of reducing the two cusps, then covering the buccal cusp and veneering, and then covering the reduced cusp internally with resin composite.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Cuspal Coverage of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Combined Composite-Amalgam Compared to Other Techniques

Shafıei¹,

Memarpour²,

Karimi³

2011

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combined composite-amalgam for cuspal coverage of endodontically treated premolars was similar to direct composite coverage in strengthening restored teeth; however, composite onlay had the highest fracture resistance. SUMMARYThis in vitro study investigated the fracture resistance of teeth restored with combined composite-amalgam for cuspal coverage compared to direct coverage with composite (with or without an amalgam base) and composite onlay. Seventy-two intact maxillary premolars were randomly divided into six groups (n¼12). The two control groups were G1, intact teeth (negative control), and G2, mesio-occlusodistal preparation only (positive control). Each of the four experimental groups used a different type of restoration for the prepared teeth: G3, direct composite cusp coverage; G4, composite onlay; G5, direct composite coverage with an amalgam base; and G6, combined compositeamalgam cuspal coverage. After thermocycling, fracture strength was tested. The data were analyzed with analysis of variance and the least significant differences post hoc tests (a¼0.05). Mean fracture resistance in the six

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Cuspal Coverage of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Combined Composite-Amalgam Compared to Other Techniques

Shafıei¹,

Memarpour²,

Karimi³

2011

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[17][18] The combined resin composite-amalgam (hybrid) restoration is not a new technique. [19][20][21] One popular method is placement of an extended amalgam restoration, followed by window preparation for composite veneering in a second appointment. Composite veneering of a complex amalgam restoration can cause an unesthetic, grayish appearance from the labial view.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Cuspal Coverage with Combined Composite–Amalgam in Endodontically-treated Maxillary Premolars

Shafıei¹,

Memarpour²,

Doozandeh³

2010

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This clinical study evaluated the clinical performance of cuspal coverage with combined composite-amalgam restorations in endodonticallytreated maxillary premolars over a three-year period. Thirty-six maxillary premolars, each with a Class II cavity in 36 patients ranging in age between 28 and 52 years, were selected after endodontic treatment. After reduction of the buccal and palatal cusps, internal coverage and veneering of the reduced buccal cusp was performed with composite. The remaining cavity and reduced palatal cusp were restored with high-copper amalgam. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and in one-, two-and threeyear recalls with USPHS criteria.Changes in characteristics of the restorations were analyzed with the Cochran Q-test at a significance level of p<0.05. Most of the restorations received an overall score of alpha, except two restorations, which showed a slight discrepancy at the composite-amalgam interface after one year (p>0.05). Four restorations exhibited slight discoloration of the composite veneering after three years (p<0.05). No restoration exhibited fracture after three years. It was concluded that combined composite-amalgam cusp coverage of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars Clinical RelevanceThe results of a three-year follow-up of a small sample of patients suggest that combined composite-amalgam restoration for cuspal coverage is useful as a conservative, one-appointment complementary procedure for endodontically-treated maxillary premolars. Clinical Researchshowed acceptable clinical performance after three years.

show abstract

“…In such a situation, the clinical failure of direct composite restorations has been reported to increase significantly. 7 Some previous reports [11][12]15 have presented similar approaches for this technique, with practical results. It should be considered that indirect restorations should be the first choice for extensive cavities, in that they exhibit better longevity, 5 however, indirect restorative techniques involving cast metals, ceramics or resin-based materials are expensive compared to directly placed restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The composite reinforcement of weakened tooth structure could improve the fracture resistance of teeth restored with amalgam. 10 Other studies have described the application of resin-based materials as a veneer for amalgam restorations, [11][12][13] combining the esthetics of composites with the mechanical properties of amalgam. Also, restoration repair could be an option within the scope of minimally invasive dentistry, 14 and resin-based materials could be used to repair fractured amalgam restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 One shortcoming of the veneering technique is the production of an additional composite/amalgam interface, because there is no chemical interaction between these materials. [10][11] However, Demarco and others 3 observed that microleakage occurred between the two materials and not between the material/tooth interface. In addition, with RMGIC, the interface will be filled with a compatible material, so that the composite, amalgam and interface will be sealed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation