“…These contradictory findings are difficult to reconcile but may be attributed to differences in methodology. Many in-vitro studies use a cavity depth of 2 mm (Kos et al 1982), Becker & von Fraunhofer 1989, Shaw et al 1989, Olson et al 1990) and some even use 3 mm (Abdal & Retief 1982, Mattison et aJ, 1985, Tuggle et al 1989, King et al 1990, Clinically, this may not he realistic because it is difficult to drill 3 mm in the long axis ofthe root in the presence of a very large periapical osseous defect (Rud and Andreasen 1972) unless a small handpiece is available. The restricted access only permits an angled approach, which may result in a palatal perforation (Gutmann & Harrison 1991), Another variable which would influence the outcome of the study was the ability to condense the amalgam satisfactorily (Friedman 1991), The adaptation of amalgam to the cavity wails is an operator-sensitive procedure that is not easy to master, even under ideal laboratory conditions (Mahler & Nelson, 1984), The ease of condensation is not only a function of the properties ofthe material and manual dexterity, but also that of the cavity design.…”