Key Points
-
Galloy restorations in moderate to large class I and class II cavities displayed early catastrophic failure that resulted in fractured tooth structure in 60% of cases.
-
Galloy restorations demonstrate dimensional instability and marked corrosion in the presence or oral fluids even when placed using procedures designed to reduce moisture contamination.
-
Due to its inferior clinical performance, Galloy is unsuitable as a restorative material for use in moderate to large class I and class II restorations.
Abstract
Aim The aim of this three-year longitudinal controlled study was to compare the clinical performance of Galloy1 versus a high copper, mercury based Dispersalloy2 filling material.
Methods Moderate to large class I and class II cavities or replacement restorations were selected and 25 Galloy® restorations and 25 Dispersalloy controls were placed in 14 adult patients by a single operator. Restorations were photographed and a silicone impression recorded at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years.
Results At 3 years all 22 Dispersalloy restorations but only 4 Galloy restorations were still in situ. Three Dispersalloy restorations were lost to follow–up. Tooth fracture was observed in 15 (60%) of the Galloy restorations by the end of the 3 years, compared to one (4%) Dispersalloy restoration, which failed due to tooth fracture. A further six Galloy restorations had to be removed due to complaints of persistent pain. Four teeth restored with Galloy required endodontic treatment but none of the Dispersalloy restored teeth required endodontics. Of the four Galloy restorations remaining in situ, three were relatively small restorations and the fourth a moderate sized restoration required a marginal repair.
Conclusion The clinical performance of Galloy restorations was so grossly inferior to the Dispersalloy controls that Galloy cannot be recommended for clinical use in moderate to large or multi-surface cavities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Puttkammer A. Mercury-free amalgam? Zahnaerztl Rundsch 1928; 35: 1450–1454.
Smith DL, Caul HJ. Alloys of gallium with powdered metals as possible replacements for dental amalgam. J Am Dent Assoc 1956; 53: 315–324.
Smith DL, Caul HJ Sweeney WT. Some physical properties of gallium-copper-tin alloys. J Am Dent Assoc 1956; 53: 677–685.
Waterstrat RM. Evaluation of gallium-palladium-tin alloy for restorative dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1969; 78: 536–541.
Dunne SM, Wilson N, Gainsford ID. Current material and techniques for direct placement restorations in posterior teeth. Part 1: Silver amalgam. Int Dent J 1997; 47: 123–136.
Wilson N, Dunne SM, Gainsford ID. Current material and techniques for direct placement restorations in posterior teeth. Part 2: Composites. Int Dent J 1997; 47: 185–193.
Hero H, Okabe T. Gallium alloys as dental restorative materials: A research review. Cells Mater 1994; 4: 409–418.
Mash LK, Miller BH, Nakajima H, Collard SM, Guo IY, Okabe T. Handling characteristics of gallium alloy for dental restorations. J Dent 1993; 21: 350–354.
Osborne JW, Summitt JB. Mechanical properties and clinical performance of a gallium restorative material. Oper Dent 1995; 20: 241–245.
Osborne JW, Summitt JB. 2-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 191–194.
Dunne SM, Abraham R. Dental post-operative sensitivity associated with a gallium-based restorative material. Br Dent J 2000; 189: 310–313.
Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Bhaskar S. Gallium alloy versus high copper amalgam: a comparative evaluation of corrosion resistance and microleakage in the primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000; 24: 315–319.
Osborne JW, Summitt JB. Direct–placement gallium restorative alloy: A 3-year clinical evaluation. Quintess Int 1999; 30: 49–53.
Neo J Chew CL, Osborne JW, Mahler DB. Clinical evaluation and microstructural analysis of a direct placement gallium restorative alloy. J Dent 2000; 28: 123–129.
Oshida Y, Moore BK. Anodic polarization behaviour and microstructure of gallium–based alloy. Dent Mat 1993; 9: 234–241.
Venugopalan R, Broome JC, Lucas LC. The effect of water contamination on dimensional change and corrosion properties of a gallium alloy. Dent Mat 1998; 14: 173–178.
Osborne JW. Photoelastic assessment of the expansion of direct-placement gallium restorative alloys. Quintess Int 1999; 30: 185–191.
Sarkar NK, Moiseyeva R, Berzins DW, Osborne JW. Long-term corrosion of a Ga-containing restorative material. Dent Mat 2000; 16: 97–102.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dunne, S., Abraham, R. & Pankhurst, C. A 3-year longitudinal, controlled clinical study of a gallium-based restorative material. Br Dent J 198, 355–359 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4812175
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4812175
This article is cited by
-
A 3 year longitudinal, controlled, clinical study of a gallium-based restorative material
British Dental Journal (2005)
