Key Points
-
Describes a bonded amalgam technique, which can be readily applied in general dental practice.
-
Reports that the longevity of bonded amalgam restorations is greater than non-bonded amalgam restorations over a five-year period.
-
Discusses some of the limitations and variables associated with bonded amalgam restoration placement, which may be relevant in other settings.
Abstract
Objective This study compared the performance of non-bonded and bonded amalgam restorations in a general dental practice.
Materials and methods A retrospective cohort study was carried out in a general dental practice of amalgam restorations, placed by a single operator. Non-bonded amalgam restorations were analysed over a ten-year period and bonded amalgam restorations over a five-year period. Survival analysis using the Kaplan-Maier method was carried out and an analysis of postoperative sensitivity and reasons for failure.
Results Each group consisted of 231 restorations in 135 patients. Survival rates of non-bonded amalgam restorations were 72.2% over five years and 51.0% over ten years. The survival rate for bonded amalgam restorations was 85.0% over five years. The difference was significant (p <0.0001, 95% CI 1.510-3.226). Analysis of postoperative sensitivity and reasons for failure were inconclusive.
Conclusion Within the limitations of the study, bonded amalgam restorations demonstrated greater longevity over non-bonded amalgam restorations and offer significant benefit to patients. Clinicians may feel confident to offer bonded amalgam restorations for their patients as a better alternative than non-bonded amalgam restorations.
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
Berry T G, Summitt J B, Chung A K, Osborne J W . Amalgam at the new millennium. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129: 1547–1556.
Anderson M H, McCoy R B . Dental amalgam. The state of the art and science. Dent Clin North Am 1993; 37: 419–431.
Eley B M . The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. Part 1: dental amalgam structure and corrosion. Br Dent J 1997; 182: 247–249.
Bonsor S J, Chadwick R G . Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice. Br Dent J 2009; 206: E3.
Osborne J W, Norman R D, Gale E N . A 14-year clinical assessment of 12 amalgam alloys. Quintessence Int 1991; 22: 857–864.
Burke F J . From extension for prevention to prevention of extension: (minimal intervention dentistry). Dent Update 2003; 30: 492–498, 500, 502.
Tyas M J, Anusavice K J, Frencken J E, Mount G J . Minimal intervention dentistry - a review. FDI Commission Project 1–97. Int Dent J 2000; 50: 1–12.
Peters M C, McLean M E . Minimally invasive operative care. I. Minimal intervention and concepts for minimally invasive cavity preparations. J Adhes Dent 2001; 3: 7–16.
Setcos J C, Staninec M, Wilson N H . The development of resin-bonding for amalgam restorations. Br Dent J 1999; 186: 328–332.
Buonocore M G . A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849–853.
Fusayama T, Nakamura M, Kurosaki N, Iwaku M . Non-pressure adhesion of a new adhesive restorative resin. J Dent Res 1979; 58: 1364–1370.
Nakabayashi N, Nakamura M, Yasuda N . Hybrid layer as a dentin-bonding mechanism. J Esthet Dent 1991; 3: 133–138.
Setcos J C, Staninec M, Wilson N H . Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 121–129.
Varga J, Matsumura H, Masuhara E . Bonding of amalgam filling to tooth cavity with adhesive resin. Dent Mater J 1986; 5: 158–164.
Shimizu A, Ui T, Kawakami M . Bond strength between amalgam and tooth hard tissues with application of fluoride, glass ionomer cement and adhesive resin cement in various combinations. Dent Mater J 1986; 5: 225–232.
Staninec M, Holt M . Bonding of amalgam to tooth structure: tensile adhesion and microleakage tests. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 397–402.
Ramos J C, Perdigão J . Bond strengths and SEM morphology of dentin-amalgam adhesives. Am J Dent 1997; 10: 152–158.
Diefenderfer K E, Reinhardt J W . Shear bond strengths of 10 adhesive resin/amalgam combinations. Oper Dent 1997; 22: 50–56.
Staninec M . Retention of amalgam restorations: undercuts versus bonding. Quintessence Int 1989; 20: 347–351.
Larson T D, Douglas W H, Geistfeld R E . Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent 1981; 6: 2–5.
Boyer D B, Roth L . Fracture resistance of teeth with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 91–94.
el-Badrawy W A . Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars restored with bonded amalgam. Oper Dent 1999; 24: 337–343.
Oliveira J P, Cochran M A, Moore B K . Influence of bonded amalgam restorations on the fracture strength of teeth. Oper Dent 1996; 21: 110–115.
Pilo R, Brosh T, Chweidan H . Cusp reinforcement by bonding of amalgam restorations. J Dent 1998; 26: 467–472.
Eakle W S, Staninec M, Lacy A M . Effect of bonded amalgam on the fracture resistance of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 257–260.
Brännström M . The cause of postrestorative sensitivity and its prevention. J Endod 1986; 12: 475–481.
Cox C F, Keall C L, Keall H J, Ostro E, Bergenholtz G . Biocompatibility of surface-sealed dental materials against exposed pulps. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 57: 1–8.
Kohalmi T, Gorzó I, Mari A, Boda K, Nagy K . [In vitro comparison of marginal adaptation of different filling materials. II. Effect of the site and method of preparation on the marginal adaptation]. Fogorv Sz 1999; 92: 111–121.
Meiers J C, Turner E W . Microleakage of dentin/amalgam alloy bonding agents: results after 1 year. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 30–35.
Torii Y, Staninec M, Kawakami M, Imazato S, Torii M, Tsuchitani Y . Inhibition in vitro of caries around amalgam restorations by bonding amalgam to tooth structure. Oper Dent 1989; 14: 142–148.
Saiku J M, St Germain H A, Jr, Meiers J C . Microleakage of a dental amalgam alloy bonding agent. Oper Dent 1993; 18: 172–178.
Ruzicková T, Staninec M, Marshall G W, Hutton J E . Bond strengths of the adhesive resin-amalgam interface. Am J Dent 1997; 10: 192–194.
Fedorowicz Z, Nasser M, Wilson N . Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009: CD007517.
Setcos J C, Staninec M, Wilson N H . A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. J Adhes Dent 1999; 1: 323–331.
Browning W D, Johnson W W, Gregory P N . Clinical performance of bonded amalgam restorations at 42 months. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 607–611.
Mach Z, Regent J, Staninec M, Mrklas L, Setcos J C . The integrity of bonded amalgam restorations: a clinical evaluation after five years. J Am Dent Assoc 2002; 133: 460–467.
Mahler D B, Engle J H . Clinical evaluation of amalgam bonding in Class I and II restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 43–49.
Smales R J, Wetherell J D . Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 374–381.
Summitt J B, Burgess J O, Berry T G, Robbins J W, Osborne J W, Haveman C W . Six-year clinical evaluation of bonded and pin-retained complex amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 261–268.
Staninec M, Artiga N, Gansky S A, Marshall G W, Eakle S . Bonded amalgam sealants and adhesive resin sealants: five-year clinical results. Quintessence Int 2004; 35: 351–357.
Staninec M, Setcos J C . Bonded amalgam restorations: current research and clinical procedure. Dent Update 2003; 30: 430–434, 436.
Gwinnett A J, Baratieri L N, Monteiro S, Jr, Ritter A V . Adhesive restorations with amalgam: guidelines for the clinician. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 687–695.
Gwinnett A J . Effect of cavity disinfection on bond strength to dentin. J Esthet Dent 1992; 4: 11–13.
Hickel R, Manhart J . Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001; 3: 45–64.
Lucarotti P S, Holder R L, Burke F J . Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): variation by type of restoration and re-intervention. J Dent 2005; 33: 805–815.
Mjör I A . The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 1997; 55: 58–63.
Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjör I A . Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1990; 48: 297–303.
Burke F J, Cheung S W, Mjor I A, Wilson N H . Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int 1999; 30: 234–242.
Acknowledgements
Grateful thanks are extended to Stacey Partridge, dental nurse, whose conscientious diligence and attention to detail greatly assisted with the retrieval of the data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed Paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Worskett, P. A comparative study of bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations in general dental practice. Br Dent J 214, E19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.328
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.328
This article is cited by
-
Reflections from undergraduate teaching experiences: some problems and solutions of restoring teeth with dental resin composite instead of dental amalgam
British Dental Journal (2022)
-
What BDJ readers were reading in 2013*...
British Dental Journal (2014)
