As a guide to operative practice it was desirable to obtain pertinent information on the mechanical performance of base materials and Class I amalgam restorations. Specifically, the question was: Under what circumstances, if any, can the interaction product of zinc oxide and eugenol be substituted for a zinc phosphate cement base?Our investigations, then, have been concerned with the mechanical failure of two different types of Class I cavity preparations that have been filled with amalgam with or without these two kinds of underbase materials. Our tests have been designed to simulate actual mechanical forces of mastication, insofar as practicable, in connection with laboratory tests.
MATERIALS AND METHODSIn order to measure the comparative ease of failure on laboratory models, it was assumed that a fair evaluation could be obtained by measuring forces applied to the occlusal surface of the amalgam filling by means of an implement which could represent either an opposing cusp or a foreign object which was resisting the forces of mastication.Accordingly, the test loads were applied to the amalgam fillings by means of a '8-inch steel ball that could be accurately seated in two intersecting channels (central fossa) on the occlusal surface. The condensation of the amalgam, then, was carried out not with the intent of producing lifelike topography (anatomy) but with the intent of obtaining a uniform thickness of amalgam and uniformity of the depth and definition of the channels in which the pressure was to be applied. The amalgam was condensed in several layers, the final surface anatomy being produced by a diel fastened to a hand press (Fig. 1). This die had to be cleaned to remove excess amalgam after each use and probably suffered from abrasion during the testing program. A metal die might have been better, but it would have had to be fabricated from a metal which would not interact with the amalgam; this restriction eliminated several common metals that could be cast by usual laboratory methods.