A 3-year longitudinal, controlled clinical study of a gallium-based restorative material

Do adverse effects of dental materials exist? What are the consequences, and how can they be diagnosed and treated?

“… About et al (2001), Al‐Omari et al (2006), Braun et al (2001), Collins et al (1998), de Lourdes Rodrigues Accorinte et al (2006), de Souza Costa et al (2002), Dunne et al (2005), Gaworski et al (1999), Gordan & Mjör (2002), Jokstad & Mjör (1996), Kern et al (1996), Kuijs et al (2006), Mach et al (2002), Merte et al (2004), Olsson et al (2005), Opdam et al (1998a, 1998b), Perdigao et al (2003), Peumans et al (1998), Rosin et al (2003), Setcos et al (1999), Swift et al (2001), Unemori et al (2001), Van Dijken et al (1999), Van Dijken & Sunnegardh‐Gronberg (2003), Vilkinis et al (2000), Whitworth et al (2005). …”

Some Myths in Dentin Bonding: An Evidence-Based Perspective

“…Although some properties of gallium-based dental alloys equaled those of silver amalgam in vitro, their clinical behavior significantly differed. Corrosion, discoloration, rough surface, expansion, postoperative sensitivity, and fractures were serious problems that RCTs identified at a later moment (Osborne and Summitt 1999;Kiremitci and Bolay 2003;Dunne et al 2005).…”

Casting the runes

“…As reported by Hero and Okabe (1994), gallium has been in use, in limited amounts, since 1956, but they did note problems with corrosion resistance and overall biocompatibility. Dunne et al (2005) have recently published a longitudinal controlled clinical study of a commercially available gallium based restorative material and found the clinical performance so grossly inferior to a control amalgam that its continued clinical use could not be justified. Indium has also been considered, but mostly as an adjunct to mercury, possibly replacing up to 10% of the mercury, but there is little evidence about either performance or safety (Johnson et al 1992) and its use is not considered significant.…”