Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive agents with dye under vacuum: An in vitro study

Parolia, Abhishek; Kundabala, M; Gupta,; Verma, Mahesh; Batra, Charu; Shenoy, Ramya; Natarajan, Srikant

doi:10.4103/0970-9290.84298

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Amalgam affords no adhesion to the walls of the cavity preparation, and poor adaptation and lack of adhesion to the dental structure are two disadvantages of amalgam when compared with composite resin restorations ( 2 , 3 ). The mechanical retention of amalgam often results in further weakening of the remaining tooth structure, and since the mid-1980s, dentin adhesives have been advocated for use in bonding amalgam to tooth structure ( 4 ). Improving retention, strengthening restored teeth in vitro, and allowing a more conservative approach to cavity preparation and reduction of microleakage are the reported benefits of using dentin adhesives for amalgam bonding ( 5 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Affect the Microleakage of Amalgam Restorations?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The effect of MRI on microleakage of amalgam restorations is an important health issue that should be considered. If MRI application causes increase of microleakage, amalgam fillings should be reassessed after MRI and replaced if necessary.Objectives:The aim of this study is to compare the effect of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on microleakage of class II bonded amalgam versus classical amalgam restorations.Materials and Methods:Class II cavities (3 mm width × 1.5 mm depth) with gingival margins ending 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) were prepared in 40 permanent molar teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups. Cavities in the first and second groups were restored with dentin adhesive and amalgam (bonded amalgam), and those in the third and fourth groups with amalgam only. MRI was performed with the teeth specimens from the first and third groups. All specimens were then thermocycled at 5° to 55° C with a 30-second dwell time for 1000 cycles. The samples were then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye for 24 hours and sectioned longitudinally. Dye penetration at the occlusal and gingival margins was quantified by 15× stereomicroscopy. IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 21.0 (IBM Corp., Released 2012., IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) and MS-Excel 2007 programs were used for statistical analyses and calculations. “nparLD” module was used for F2_LD_F1 design analysis at R program. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:In teeth with amalgam filling, there were no significant differences of occlusal and gingival surface microleakage after MRI exposure. Occlusal and gingival surface microleakages were also similar with and without MRI in teeth with bonded amalgam filling.Conclusions:The results of this study suggest that MRI does not increase microleakage of amalgam restorations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Affect the Microleakage of Amalgam Restorations?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dental amalgam has many advantages when used as a restorative material, such as high compressive strength, excellent wear characteristics, is easier to use than other materials, is less technique-sensitive and present satisfactory long-term results. [6] However, its poor esthetics is one major disadvantage, especially nowadays, where the concepts of esthetics are most valued. The decision to replace an amalgam restoration for esthetics purposes was based on the desire of the patient to have a restoration similar to tooth structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the use of channels, boxes, locks or pins for added retention in large amalgam restorations, involves the removal of additional tooth structure and therefore, weakens the remaining dental hard tissues. [6] In order to minimize tooth reduction, new materials that had adhesion to dental structures and could be used in more conservative cavities were developed, such as resin composites. The current composites do not have the same good mechanical properties then amalgam, but they also exhibit satisfactory clinical results and they are considered anesthetic material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting the placement or replacement of direct restorations in a dental school

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context:The knowledge of the reasons for the placement of direct restorations makes possible to trace an epidemiological profile of a specific population and to direct the teaching of dentistry to techniques that are commonly used today and will be continued performed in the future.Purpose:The aim of this study was to verify the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations in patients treated in the Dental Clinic of the Uberaba University – Brazil.Materials and Methods:This study evaluated 306 restorative procedures carried out on 60 patients. During the treatment planning, a form that contained information about the patient's gender, tooth number, the classification of restorations, the reasons for placement and replacement of amalgam and tooth-colored restorations, the material that had to be removed and the new material used to fill the cavities was filled for each patient. Statistical analysis was carried out using Chi-square test (α = 0.05).Results:The data showed that most of the patients were female (66.7%). Of all the restorations placed, 60.45% were 1st-time placements, while 39.55% were replacements. For 1st-time restorations, the main reason for placement was primary caries (76.76%), followed by non-carious cervical lesions (15.14%). The amalgam restorations were replaced more frequently (67.77%). The primary reason for replacements was the presence of secondary caries (for both previous amalgam (42.68%) and composite (66.67%) restorations (P < 0.05). The resin composite was the most indicated material for the new restorations (98.04%) (P < 0.05).Conclusions:The main reason for placement of direct restorations was primary caries, while secondary caries was the main reason for replacements. In almost all cases, the material used to fill the cavities was the resin composite.

show abstract

“…The use of pins for added retention in large amalgam restorations requires the removal of additional tooth structure and weakens the remaining enamel and dentin. In an effort to minimize tooth reduction, bonded amalgam restorations were introduced in the late 1980s [35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Intra-Orifice Barriers on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth – An Ex-Vivo Study

Aboobaker

Nair

Gopal

et al. 2015

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive agents with dye under vacuum: An in vitro study

Abstract: Bonded amalgam restorations prevent over-preparation and reduce the tooth flexure. GIC type I under amalgam provides chemical bonding in between amalgam and tooth structure and thus reduces the microleakage.

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Affect the Microleakage of Amalgam Restorations?

Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Affect the Microleakage of Amalgam Restorations?

Factors affecting the placement or replacement of direct restorations in a dental school

Effect of Intra-Orifice Barriers on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth – An Ex-Vivo Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About