Baldwin H. Cement and amalgam fillings. Br J Dent Sci. 1897; 40:193-234
de Morais PM, Rodrigues Junior AL, Pimenta LA. Quantitative microleakage evaluation around amalgam restorations with different treatments on cavity walls. Oper Dent. 1999; 24:217-222
Zardiackas LD, Stoner GE. Tensile and shear adhesion of amalgam to tooth structure using selective interfacial amalgamation. Biomaterials. 1983; 4:9-13
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
Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. The development of resin-bonding for amalgam restorations. Br Dent J. 1999; 186:328-332
al-Moayad M, Aboush YE, Elderton RJ. Bonded amalgam restorations: a comparative study of glass-ionomer and resin adhesives. Br Dent J. 1993; 175:363-367
Chen RS, Liu CC, Cheng MR, Lin CP. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:411-417
Ng BP, Hood JA, Purton DG. Effects of sealers and liners on marginal leakage of amalgam and gallium alloy restorations. Oper Dent. 1998; 23:229-235
Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. J Dent. 1976; 4:199-206
Murray PE, Hafez AA, Smith AJ, Cox CF. Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002; 18:470-478
Subay RK, Cox CF, Kaya H, Tarim B, Subay AA, Nayir M. Human pulp reaction to dentine bonded amalgam restorations: a histologic study. J Dent. 2000; 28:327-332
Cruickshank EJ, Chadwick RG. Can chemical softening agents minimize cavity enlargement during removal of failed anterior resin composite restorations?. J Oral Rehabil. 1998; 25:167-173
Moore DS, Johnson WW, Kaplan I. A comparison of amalgam microleakage with a 4-META liner and copal varnish. Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8:461-466
Edgren BN, Denehy GE. Microleakage of amalgam restorations using Amalgambond and Copalite. Am J Dent. 1992; 5:296-298
Ben-Amar A, Liberman R, Rothkoff Z, Cardash HS. Long term sealing properties of Amalgambond under amalgam restorations. Am J Dent. 1994; 7:141-143
Ben-Amar A, Liberman R, Judes H, Nordenberg D. Long-term use of dentine adhesive as an interfacial sealer under Class II amalgam restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 1990; 17:37-42
Sepetcioglu F, Ataman BA. Long-term monitoring of microleakage of cavity varnish and adhesive resin with amalgam. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 79:136-139
Berry FA, Parker SD, Rice D, Munoz CA. Microleakage of amalgam restorations using dentin bonding system primers. Am J Dent. 1996; 9:174-178
Newman JE Jr, Hondrum SO, Clem DB. Microleakage under amalgam restorations lined with Copalite, Amalgambond Plus, and Vitrebond. Gen Dent. 1996; 44:340-344
Meiers JC, Turner EW. Microleakage of dentin/amalgam alloy bonding agents: results after 1 year. Oper Dent. 1998; 23:30-35
Turner EW, St Germain HA, Meiers JC. Microleakage of dentin-amalgam bonding agents. Am J Dent. 1995; 8:191-196
Saiku JM, St Germain HA Jr, Meiers JC. Microleakage of a dental amalgam alloy bonding agent. Oper Dent. 1993; 18:172-178
Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root-canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1994; 10:105-108
Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Assessment of leakage in the restored pulp chamber of endodontically treated multirooted teeth. Int Endod J. 1990; 23:28-33
Howdle MD, Fox K, Youngson CC. An in vitro study of coronal microleakage around bonded amalgam coronal-radicular cores in endodontically treated molar teeth. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33:22-29
Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjor IA. Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand. 1990; 48:297-303
Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjor IA, Wilson NH. 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
Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjor IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent. 2001; 29:317-324
Kidd EA, Silverstone LM. Remineralisation in vitro of artificial caries-like lesions produced in relation to amalgam restorations. Caries Res. 1978; 12:238-242
Staninec M, Jow RW, Kircos LT, Hoover CI. In vitro caries induction at the tooth-amalgam interface. Dent Mater. 1988; 4:72-76
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
Ben-Amar A, Nordenberg D, Liberman R, Fischer J, Gorfil C. The control of marginal microleakage in amalgam restorations using a dentin adhesive: a pilot study. Dent Mater. 1987; 3:94-96
Belcher MA, Stewart GP. Two-year clinical evaluation of an amalgam adhesive. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997; 128:309-314
Kennington LB, Davis RD, Murchison DF, Langenderfer WR. Short-term clinical evaluation of post-operative sensitivity with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent. 1998; 11:177-180
Mahler DB, Engle JH. Clinical evaluation of amalgam bonding in Class I and II restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131:43-49
Browning WD, Johnson WW, Gregory PN. Postoperative pain following bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 1997; 22:66-71
Mahler DB, Engle JH, Simms LE, Terkla LG. One-year clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996; 127:345-349
Summitt JB, Burgess JO, Berry TG, Robbins JW, Osborne JW, Haveman CW. The performance of bonded vs. pin-retained complex amalgam restorations: a five-year clinical evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132:923-931
Oliveira FC, Denehy GE, Boyer DB. Fracture resistance of endodontically prepared teeth using various restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1987; 115:57-60
Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontically-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res. 1989; 68:1540-1544
Helfer AR, Melnick S, Schilder H. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path. 1972; 34:661-670
Eakle WS, Staninec M, Lacy AM. Effect of bonded amalgam on the fracture resistance of teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68:257-260
Steele A, Johnson BR. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars. J Endo. 1999; 25:6-8
Sagsen B, Aslan B. Effect of bonded restorations on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth. Int Endod J. 2006; 39:900-904
Bonilla E, White SN. Fatigue of resin-bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 1996; 21:122-126
Santos AC, Meiers JC. Fracture resistance of premolars with MOD amalgam restorations lined with Amalgambond. Oper Dent. 1994; 19:2-6
Oliveira JP, Cochran MA, Moore BK. Influence of bonded amalgam restorations on the fracture strength of teeth. Oper Dent. 1996; 21:110-115
Camacho GB, Goncalves M, Nonaka T, Osorio AB. Fracture strength of restored premolars. Am J Dent. 2007; 20:121-124
Smales RJ, Wetherell JD. Bonded amalgam restorations. Aust Dent J. 1994; 39
Christensen GJ. Should you and can you afford to bond amalgams?. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994; 125:1381-1382
Latino C, Troendle K, Summitt JB. Support of undermined occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32:287-291
Franchi M, Breschi L, Ruggeri O. Cusp fracture resistance in composite-amalgam combined restorations. J Dent. 1999; 27:47-52
Lindemuth JS, Hagge MS, Broome JS. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:177-181
el-Badrawy WA. Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars restored with bonded amalgam. Oper Dent. 1999; 24:337-343
Davis R, Overton JD. Efficacy of bonded and nonbonded amalgam in the treatment of teeth with incomplete fractures. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131:469-478
Bearn DR, Saunders EM, Saunders WP. The bonded amalgam restoration – a review of the literature and report of its use in the treatment of four cases of cracked-tooth syndrome. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25:321-326
Staninec M. Retention of amalgam restorations: undercuts versus bonding. Quintessence Int. 1989; 20:347-351
Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. A two-year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. J Adhes Dent. 1999; 1:323-331
Osborne JW, Lopez Howell M, Marshall H. Webb and extension for prevention: a literature review. Quintessence Int. 1999; 30:399-403
In: Jacobsen P Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998
Summitt JB, Burgess JO, Berry TG, Robbins JW, Osborne JW, Haveman CW. Six-year clinical evaluation of bonded and pin-retained complex amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 2004; 29:261-268
Browning WD, Johnson WW, Gregory PN. Clinical performance of bonded amalgam restorations at 42 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131:607-611
Smales RJ, Wetherell JD. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:374-381
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:2-8
3M ESPE Rely X ARC Adhesive Resin Cement System Technical Product Profile. 1998;
Burke FJ, Shortall AC. Successful restoration of load-bearing cavities in posterior teeth with direct-replacement resin-based composite. Dent Update. 2001; 28:388-398
Brown LJ, Wall T, Wassenaar JD. Trends in resin and amalgam usage as recorded on insurance claims submitted by dentists from the early 1990s and 1998. J Dent Res. 2000; 79
Reinhardt JW, Capilouto ML. Composite resin esthetic dentistry survey in New England. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 120:541-544
Lynch CD, Shortall AC, Stewardson D, Tomson PL, Burke FJ. Teaching posterior composite resin restorations in the United Kingdom and Ireland: consensus views of teachers. Br Dent J. 2007; 203:183-187
Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:121-129
Bonded amalgams and their use in clinical practice Stephen J Bonsor Dental Update 2024 38:4, 707-709.
Authors
Stephen JBonsor
BDS(Hons) MSc FHEA FDS RCPS(Glasg) FDFTEd FCGDent GDP
The Dental Practice, 21 Rubislaw Terrace, Aberdeen; Hon Senior Clinical Lecturer, Institute of Dentistry, University of Aberdeen; Online Tutor/Clinical Lecturer, University of Edinburgh, UK.
There has been a move in recent years for operative dentists to use the benefits of adhesive technology when placing dental amalgam restorations. This paper describes the potential advantages of the bonded amalgam technique. These benefits include decreased microleakage between the cavity wall and the restorative material. This, in turn, may decrease post-operative sensitivity, pulpal inflammation and the incidence of recurrent caries. Extra retention for the restoration may also be provided and the need for cavities to rely on traditional retention and resistance form may be decreased or even eliminated, thus conserving precious tooth tissue. If the restoration is bonded then flexure during function in teeth may be decreased and, in the case of teeth exhibiting a cracked cusp, this may alleviate or eliminate symptoms. Bonding may also provide support to weakened tooth tissue which otherwise would have to be removed, so rendering cavities more conservative, and may increase the fracture resistance of the tooth. Clinical examples are included to illustrate some of these benefits.
Clinical Relevance: The use of adhesives to bond amalgam to tooth tissue offers potential advantages, although some of the current evidence is equivocal about their routine use.
Article
Dental amalgam is a mixture of a silver alloy with mercury.1 It has been used in dentistry since the 1800s2 and, through scientific investigation, the composition of the constituents of the alloy have been refined to produce a material with today's optimized clinical handling and performance. Traditional amalgam alloys suffered from a lack of strength, exhibited flow and creep and were susceptible to corrosion owing to the presence of the γ2, tin-mercury phase.2 Furthermore, amalgam on its own does not bond to tooth structure and cannot provide a complete seal or be retained in the tooth without some form of mechanical retention, such as undercuts.3 More recently, attempts have been made to reduce or even eliminate the γ2 phase by increasing the copper content in the alloy to above 13%.4 This modification of the setting reaction has resulted in some important changes in the properties of the amalgam, namely:
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
