Amalgam Repair: Quantitative Evaluation of Amalgam-resin and Resin-tooth Interfaces with Different Surface Treatments

Çehreli, Sevi Burçak; Arhun, Neslıhan; Çelik, Çiğdem

doi:10.2341/09-135-l

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, Cehreli et al (2010) 14 demonstrated that microleakage at the amalgam/composite resin interface was higher than at the tooth interface, but dealt with old amalgam as a substrate. It seems that use of fresh amalgam is favorable in terms of sealing ability at the interface of an amalgam/ composite combined restoration.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

Tolidis¹,

Boutsiouki²,

Gerasimou³

2013

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare marginal seal at tooth-material and material-material interfaces in the proximal box in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations. Methods: Mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared in 35 premolars and permanent molars with carbide bur. The distal proximal box was restored with amalgam (Permite, SDI) until reaching the height of pulpal floor. Dental tissues were etched with 37% acid and a bonding agent (Bond 1-SF, Pentron) was applied and cured. Composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M-ESPE) was placed in layers in the mesial proximal box and occlusally, and light cured. Marginal adaptation was evaluated at the following interfaces: amalgam-tooth (A), amalgam-composite resin (AC) and composite resin-tooth (C). Microleakage was evaluated by means of methylene blue infiltration after 7-day water storage and thermocycling regimen (1500 cycles). Microleakage was assessed as percentage depth of horizontal dye penetration. Results: ANOVA showed statistically significant difference between A-AC and A-C (p<0.01). No statistically significant difference was found between AC-C interfaces (p>0.05). Mean microleakage values were A (73.529/28.71), AC (34.118/34.6) and C (40.435/ 34.965), according to Tukey's test. Conclusions: Although the bonding mechanism between amalgam and composite has not yet been completely explained, amalgam/composite resin interface exhibited the lowest microleakage scores. Since amalgam/composite resin restorations exhibited lower microleakage scores than composite resin on the cervical surface, combined restorations can be considered as a biological and aesthetic alternative to conventional Class II composite or amalgam restorations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

Tolidis¹,

Boutsiouki²,

Gerasimou³

2013

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has been attributed to the non-uniform stresses generated with shear testing within the interfacial zone as this can have a significant effect on the mode of failure. 24 The basis for selection of the adhesive repair systems used in the current study was their demonstrated ability to bond to metals 25 , their use in similar studies involving amalgam 6,9,21,26 and their commercial availability as products marketed for facilitating intra-oral amalgam repairs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,5 Another common reason for amalgam replacement is partial or complete cusp fracture adjacent to, or involving, the amalgam restorations. 6,7 Previous studies indicate that complete cusp fracture in teeth restored with amalgam restorations is a relatively common observation in clinical practice and particularly so for posterior teeth restored with extensive amalgam restorations. [7][8][9] The prevalence of complete cusp fracture in amalgam-restored premolar and molar teeth has been reported to range between 4-8% and 5-15% respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of surface conditioning on the bond strength of resin composite to amalgam

Blum

Hafiana

Curtis

et al. 2012

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of different surface conditioning methods on the tensile bond strength (TBS) and integrity of the amalgam-resin composite interface, using commercially available restoration repair systems. METHODS: One hundred and sixty Gamma 2 amalgam specimens were stored in artificial saliva for 2 weeks and then randomly assigned to one of the following conditioning groups (n=20/group): Group 1: air abrasion, alloy primer and 'Panavia 21', Group 2: air abrasion and 'Amalgambond Plus', Group 3: air abrasion and 'All-Bond 3', Group 4: diamond bur, alloy primer and 'Panavia 21', Group 5: diamond bur and 'Amalgambond Plus', Group 6: diamond bur and 'All-Bond 3', Group 7: silica coating technique, and Group 8: non-conditioned amalgam surfaces (control group). Subsequently, resin composite material was added to the substrate surfaces and the amalgam-resin composite specimens were subjected to TBS testing. Representative samples from the test groups were subjected to scanning electron microscopy and surface profilometry. The data was analysed statistically with one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's tests (=0.05). RESULTS: The mean TBS of amalgam-resin composite ranged between 1.34 and 5.13MPa and varied with the degree of amalgam surface roughness and the type of conditioning technique employed. Significantly highest TBS values (5.13±0.96MPa) were obtained in Group 1 (p=0.013). CONCLUSION: Under the tested conditions, significantly greater tensile bond strength of resin composite to amalgam was achieved when the substrate surface was conditioned by air abrasion followed by the application of the Panavia 21 adhesive system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Effecting a repair of an amalgam restoration with resin composite via the use of air abrasion and application of Panavia 21 would seem to enhance the integrity of the amalgam-resin composite interface. Clinical trials involving the implementation of this technique are indicated to determine the usefulness of this technique.

show abstract

“…The cohesive fractures better demonstrated the effectiveness of the surface treatment 11,[30][31][32] . On the other hand, we observed that the groups with low bond strength had more adhesive fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Effect of the superficial treatment in the repair of silorane-based composite aged artificially

Dalazen

Sinhoreti

Coutinho

2015

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Amalgam Repair: Quantitative Evaluation of Amalgam-resin and Resin-tooth Interfaces with Different Surface Treatments

Abstract: In terms of microleakage reduction, etch & rinse adhesives may be preferred over self-etch adhesives for amalgam repair.

Cited by 22 publications

References 19 publications

Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

The effect of surface conditioning on the bond strength of resin composite to amalgam

Effect of the superficial treatment in the repair of silorane-based composite aged artificially

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About