Clinical evaluation of a composite resin system with a dentin bonding agent for restoration of permanent posterior teeth: a 3-year study.

This study evaluated the clinical performance of a visible light-cured small particle bimodally filled hybrid condensable composite resin system that included a dentin bonding agent compared with an amalgam alloy in class II restorations of permanent teeth. A total of 108 restorations were placed in 34 patients. Fifty-three composite resin and 55 amalgam restorations were inserted. Each restoration was evaluated immediately after placement and then on an annual basis for a 3-year period using the Public Health Service (PHS) criteria. In addition, the Moffa-Lugassy scale was used to measure the loss of material on the occlusal surface of these materials. One hundred percent of the resin and amalgam restorations were evaluated, measured, and reasons for replacement were recorded over the 3-year period. There was no significant difference (p greater than 0.05) in the clinical performance of the composite resin and the amalgam when evaluated by the PHS criteria. Analyses of wear at each of the three annual recall periods did not reveal any significant difference (p greater than 0.05) between the two restorative materials when measured by the Moffa-Lugassy scale.     

The management of occlusal caries in permanent molars. A 5-year clinical trial comparing a minimal composite with an amalgam restoration

A clinical trial comparing the efficacy of an occlusal amalgam restoration with a minimal composite restoration and fissure sealant in the management of occlusal caries in young patients has been performed. One hundred and fifty pairs of restorations were placed in 103 patients and assessed during the 5-year follow-up period. Nineteen restorations failed during this period: 11 amalgam and 8 minimal composite. There was some deterioration in anatomical form and marginal integrity of the remaining amalgam restorations. Of the remaining minimal composites, seven suffered clinically detectable wear and a further five had some marginal staining. Forty-nine of the minimal composites needed to have repairs to the fissure sealant. The amalgam restorations occupied, on average, 25% of the occlusal surface of the tooth, compared with 5% for the minimal composite resin. The results after a 5-year follow-up showed no significant difference in median survival times between the amalgam and the minimal composite restorations.     

Cariostatic and ultraconservative sealed restorations: six-year results.

The objective of this clinical study was to determine the ability of an ultraconservative, sealed composite resin restoration, without a traditional cavity preparation and without the removal of the carious lesion, to arrest Class I caries. Tooth preparation was limited to placing a bevel in the enamel. These restorations were compared, over 6 years, with (1) ultraconservative, localized, sealed amalgam restorations with no extension for prevention and (2) traditional, unsealed amalgam restorations with the usual extension for prevention outline form. Caries was arrested by the ultraconservative, sealed composite resin restorations for 6 years. Complete sealant retention on the sealed amalgam restorations was somewhat lower than that on the sealed composite resin restorations; conversely, partial sealant retention was higher for the sealed amalgam group. The marginal integrity of the sealed amalgam restorations was significantly superior to that of the unsealed amalgam restorations. The sealant also protected Class I posterior composite resin restorations against wear.     

Amalgam--Resurrection and redemption. Part 1: the clinical and legal mythology of anti-amalgam.

Dental amalgam has come under attack for its allegedly poor physical properties and clinical performance in addition to its poor appearance. It has been claimed that the American Dental Association has a hidden agenda to protect amalgam and that other countries have banned its use. A literature search revealed that the vast majority of amalgam restorations do not cause fractured cusps or have recurrent caries. Most amalgam restorations have been shown to last longer than resin composite restorations. In addition, the materials and techniques involved in amalgam restorations have vastly improved in recent years. Like resin composite restorations, amalgam restorations can often be repaired. The American Dental Association has no vested interest in protecting amalgam. The use of amalgam has not been banned in any country in the European Union. According to the latest scientific information available, dental amalgam is a remarkably durable and long-lasting restorative material. Although its appearance is unesthetic, its clinical performance and effectiveness are unsurpassed by those of resin composite.     

Early failure of Class II resin composite versus Class II amalgam restorations placed by dental students

Using the information from remake request slips in a dental school's predoctoral clinic, we examined the short-term survival of Class II resin composite restorations versus Class II dental amalgam restorations. In the student clinic, resin composite is used in approximately 58 percent of Class II restorations placed, and dental amalgam is used in the remaining 42 percent. In the period examined, Class II resin composite restorations were ten times more likely to be replaced at no cost to the patient than Class II dental amalgam restorations. A total of eighty-four resin composite restorations and six amalgam restorations were replaced due to an identified failure.     

Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the performance, in terms of marginal adaptation, of a non-gamma-2 amalgam alloy with a compact-filled light-cured composite in the restoration of Class II preparations of conservative design. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Fifty recently extracted teeth were selected for the study. The teeth were restored with either a non-gamma-2 amalgam alloy, Dispersalloy, or a compact-filled resin composite, Z100, using standard techniques. The marginal adaptation of the restorative materials to the proximal surface outline form of each preparation was assessed at magnification x30. RESULTS: Highly significant differences were demonstrated in the mean percentages of perfect margins in all 3 segments of the proximal boxes of the restorations with the resin composite performing significantly better than the amalgam. The percentages of marginal fissuring were significantly higher in the amalgam restorations, except at the cervical margin, where the incidence of fissuring was almost the same for the amalgam and resin composite restorations. The resin composite restorations had significantly fewer underfilled margins than the amalgam restorations. CONCLUSION: In the conservative Class II preparations, the amalgam restorations were of poor quality with respect to marginal adaptation, compared with the resin composite restorations. It is suggested that the use of amalgam as a control in a clinical evaluation of resin composite restorations in conservative preparations cannot be justified, because it is apparently not possible to compare restorations of equivalent initial quality.     

Long-term deterioration of composite resin and amalgam restorations.

Previous long-term longitudinal studies of two different methods of placing an auto-cured conventional anterior composite resin, and of a low- and a high-copper amalgam alloy, had shown similar restoration survivals despite the different resin treatment methods used or the types of amalgam alloy placed. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess several clinical factors or characteristics of these restorations that were believed to affect the survival of the restorative materials. The 950 composite resin and the 1042 amalgam restorations examined were placed by many operators in numerous patients attending a dental hospital. The composite resin restorations were placed using unetched- and etched-enamel-bonding treatment methods, and the amalgam restorations were polished after insertion. Clinical ratings supplemented by color transparencies were used for the assessment of four factors for the resin, and four factors for the amalgam restoration. Significant deterioration differences were found for several of the clinical factors assessed for both the two different composite resin treatment methods, and for the two different amalgam alloys, which were not directly related to the restoration survivals.     

A 5-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam

Eighty class I and class II light-cured posterior composite resin restorations were compared with 43 class I and class II amalgam restorations during a 5-year period after placement. The results of this clinical study showed that both materials were satisfactory during the time period and that the only significant statistical differences are a poorer marginal integrity for the amalgam and a greater wear rate for the composite resin.     

The amalgam-free dental school

OBJECTIVES: To review the change in teaching of Restorative Dentistry at Nijmegen dental school over the period 1986 to the present. KEY POINTS: In 1986, class I and II resin composite restorations were included in the pre-clinical program. However, these courses still started with class I and II amalgam restorations. From 1990 on, the number of amalgam restorations placed in the clinic gradually decreased while the number of resin composite restorations increased. Meanwhile, resin composite had become the first choice for treatment of primary caries (class I and class II) lesions. Finally in 1994, the pre-clinical training started with resin composite restorations before dental amalgam was taught and the advantage of a minimal preparation was further emphasized. Since 2001 the teaching of dental amalgam ceased at the dental school. This was not an abrupt change but the result of a long transitional stage during which it was gradually substituted by resin composite. This step-by-step introduction allowed the acceptance of composite resin by the staff as an alternative for dental amalgam in posterior restorations. As in 2001 students placed only 2.5 amalgam restorations before graduation, it was decided to stop with the pre-clinical training program. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of resin composites meant an important change in teaching restorative dentistry at Nijmegen dental school. It was not just a change in materials and techniques but also a change in treatment philosophy. The reduced need for preparation and the strengthening effect on the remaining tooth were the principal reasons for the shift from dental amalgam to adhesive dentistry with resin composite at Nijmegen dental school.     

Sealed restorations: 5-year results.

This clinical study determined the feasibility of a sealed resin composite restoration to arrest dental caries using a minimal tooth preparation: a bevel in enamel only without removal of the carious lesion. These ultra-conservative sealed composite restorations placed over caries (CompS/C) were compared with ultra-conservative sealed amalgam restorations (AGS) that had no "extension for prevention". The CompS/C restorations were also compared with the traditional (unsealed) amalgam restorations (AGU) with the "extension for prevention" outline form. Caries progress, as determined by standardized radiographs, revealed that after 5 years caries remained arrested under the CompS/C restorations; the marginal integrity was similar for the CompS/C and the AGS groups, and exhibited highly significant superiority to the AGU restorations (Chi square, P less than = 0.00004). Complete sealant retention over the amalgam restorations (AGS group) was less than over the composite restorations (CompS/C), and conversely, partial sealant retention was higher for the AGS group. Sealants also appeared to protect the posterior composite restorations against wear.     

Clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations.

Two formulations of posterior composite resin (P-30 and Bisfil-P) were evaluated and compared to a high-copper, dispersed-phase amalgam (Dispersalloy). One hundred twenty-eight restorations were placed in 27 patients so that each patient received at least one of each material. After 3 years of clinical service, all three restorative materials produced clinically acceptable restorations, according to US Public Health Service and Leinfelder criteria. The amalgam restorations, however, underwent less wear (44 microns) than did the posterior composite resin restorations (60 to 74 microns). Stratification of data by type of tooth, class of restoration, and size of restoration produced the same ranking of wear from lowest to highest: Dispersalloy, Bisfil-P, and P-30. Resin restorations showed 45% more wear in molars than in premolars, and more wear was associated with moderately sized restorations than with conservative restorations. The surface texture of restorations of composite resin with porous strontium glass filler was nearly as smooth as that of enamel and was significantly smoother than that of the restorations of composite resin with zinc glass filler or of unpolished amalgam.     

A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the longevity of class I and II amalgam and composite resin restorations placed in a general practice. METHODS: Patient records of a general practice were used for collecting the data for this study. From the files longevity and reasons for failure of 2867 class I and II amalgam and composite resin restorations placed in 621 patients by two operators between 1990 and 1997 were recorded in 2002. RESULTS: 912 amalgam restorations (502 by operator 1 and 410 by operator 2) and 1955 posterior composite resin restorations (1470 by operator 1 and 485 by operator 2) were placed. One hundred and eighty-two amalgam and 259 posterior composite resin restorations failed during the observation period. The main reasons for failure of the restorations were caries (34%), endodontic treatment (12%) and fracture of the tooth (13%). Life tables calculated from the data reveal a survival for composite resin of 91.7% at 5 years and 82.2% at 10 years. For amalgam the survival is 89.6% at 5 years and 79.2% at 10 years. Cox-regression analysis resulted in a significant effect of the amount of restored surfaces on the survival of the restorations. No significant effect of operator, material as well as combination of material and operator was found. SIGNIFICANCE: In the investigated general practice, two dentists obtained comparable longevity for amalgam and composite resin restorations.     

Restorative service patterns in Australia: amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer restorations

AIM: To examine the provision of amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer restorations, and to assess whether these main restorative services varied by patient, visit and oral health characteristics. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey incorporating a log of service items provided on a typical day. SETTING: Australian private general practice. METHODS: Data on services and patients were collected by a mailed survey from a random sample of dentists from each State/Territory in Australia in 1998-99 with a response rate of 71%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates per visit of amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer restorations among dentate adults who had received a restoration. RESULTS: Analysis showed older patients had lower amalgam rates but higher glass ionomer rates, composite resin rates were lower at emergency visits, capital city patients had higher amalgam rates but lower composite resin rates, patients with decayed teeth had higher amalgam and composite resin rates, and use of restorative materials varied by clinical problem. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread use of alternative materials, amalgam rates remained high in circumstances such as replacement restorations and restorations involving more than one surface. Other restorative materials also had specific applications. Both amalgam and composite resins were provided at higher rates to patients with active caries but composite resins were also used at higher rates for aesthetic problems. Glass ionomer restorations were used at higher rates for initial and one-surface restorations, and for conditions such as root caries and dentinal sensitivity.     

Effect of pre- and postoperative bleaching on marginal leakage of amalgam and composite restorations.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pre- and postoperative bleaching with 10% carbamide peroxide on marginal leakage of amalgam and resin composite restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Three groups were made using 30 extracted, caries-free third molars (n = 10). In the preoperative group, bleaching was performed with 10% carbamide peroxide, followed by the placement of resin composite and amalgam restorations on Class V cavity preparations. In the postoperative group, bleaching was performed after the resin composite and amalgam restorations were fabricated. The third group served as a control in which no bleaching was performed. Dye penetration was used for evaluation of marginal leakage. RESULTS: Chi-square test showed that marginal leakage of resin composite restorations increased in both pre- and postoperatively bleached groups, but marginal leakage of amalgam restorations showed no alterations. CONCLUSION: Bleaching with carbamide peroxide may alter the marginal leakage of resin composite restorations, but amalgam restorations are not affected adversely in vitro.     

The future of dental amalgam

This paper is a comment on 'The enigma of dental amalgam' by Carl Leinfelder published in 2004 in the Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. In that paper a warning is stated against a too abrupt change from amalgam towards resin composite, because this will bring a lot of clinical problems due to the limited skills of todays' dentists in placing posterior composite resin restorations. However, the situation in The Netherlands is different since a gradual changeover from amalgam towards resin composites has taken place during the last decades and dental schools have skipped training in placing amalgam restorations out of the curriculum. Clinical studies on the longevity of amalgam and resin composite restorations placed by dental students and dentists who are experienced in both composite resin and amalgam placement show a comparable and acceptable annual failure rate for those restorations. It is concluded that a gradual changeover from amalgam towards composite resin is preferred to avoid clinical problems.     

The combined composite resin and amalgam restoration for posterior teeth: a clinical report.

This paper presents a technique for restoring maxillary posterior teeth with a combined composite resin and amalgam restoration when the preparation extends buccally into an esthetically critical area. This technique has two major advantages over traditional combined restorations: it requires only one clinical appointment, and it provides an esthetically acceptable result while maintaining the advantages of an amalgam restoration. A clinical assessment of 12 of these restorations, in vivo for 0.8 to 6.4 years, is presented. All but one restoration received a score of excellent or acceptable.     

Fracture strength of Class I versus Class II restored premolars tested at the marginal ridge. I. Standard preparations

Two groups of maxillary premolars with Class I cavities were prepared with one marginal ridge thickness to a width of 1.0 mm. One group was restored with amalgam and the other group with composite resin. Two groups of Class II cavities also were prepared and restored with amalgam and composite resin. The teeth in the four treatment groups were subjected to a centric load at the marginal ridge until fracture occurred. A two-factor analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant difference between the class of preparation (Class I preparations were weaker than were Class II preparations) but differences in strength between restorative materials (composite resin versus amalgam) and the interaction effect (class of preparation x restorative materials) were not found to be statistically significant (alpha = .05). A Newman-Keuls sequential range test found no statistically significant differences in strength between groups (alpha = .05). Fracture patterns were observed under scanning electron microscope. Fractures extended into the enamel and into the material in the Class I composite resin, Class I amalgam, and Class II composite resin restorations. Fractures extended only into the material in Class II amalgam restorations.     

Trends in material choice for direct restorations by final year students from University College Cork 2004-2009

Traditionally, undergraduate students in University College Cork (UCC) have been taught to use amalgam as the first choice material for direct restoration of posterior cavities. Since 2005 the use of composite resins has replaced amalgam as the first choice material. An audit was conducted of all direct restorations placed by final year students from UCC from 2004 until 2009. Results showed that over a six year period, final year UCC dental undergraduate students placed proportionately more direct composite resin restorations and significantly fewer amalgam restorations. The need for and undergraduate exposure to, provision of amalgam restorations may have to be revisited.     

Retention of cast crowns cemented to amalgam and composite resin cores

An in vitro study was conducted to determine the tensile bond strength of complete cast gold restorations cemented with zinc phosphate cement on composite resin and amalgam crown cores. The samples were thermocycled and tested at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month intervals. Results of the study showed that: (1) the amalgam core provides more retention for the cast gold crown than does the composite resin core and (2) the composite resin core provides increasing retention over a longer time period.     

From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland

The aim of this study was to obtain information on restorative dental care in Finland and to analyze the changes in treatment over a 5-year period. A random sample of dentists was drawn from the registers of the health authorities and the dental association in Finland, and in the spring of 1997 a questionnaire was sent requesting the dentists to record information for each restoration placed during a given period. A total of 1,229 dentists were contacted, and 659 responded. The dentists treated 5,305 adults during the study period and placed 6,322 restorations. The most common restorative material was composite resin, which was used in 74.9% of the restorations, whereas amalgam was used in 4.8% and glass ionomers in 9.4% of the restorations. The median ages of failed restorations were nearly 12 years for amalgam, slightly less than 5 years for composite, and slightly more than 4 years for glass ionomer. The results indicate that clinical dentistry in Finland has made a definite step towards the post-amalgam era. However, the functional periods of the failed tooth-colored restorations were disappointingly short and warrant some serious consideration.