HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 132, No 7, 923-931. © 2001 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by SUMMITT, J.B. Articles by HAVEMAN, C.W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by SUMMITT, J.B. Articles by HAVEMAN, C.W. Related Collections Restoratives

JADA Continuing Education

A five-year clinical evaluation

Background. The authors compared the clinical performance of complex amalgam restorations, replacing at least one cusp—retained either mechanically with self-threading pins or bonded—with a filled, 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride, or 4-META, –based resin designed for amalgam bonding.

Methods. The authors placed 60 amalgam restorations (28 pin-retained and 32 bonded), each restoration replacing at least one cusp. They used self-threading stainless steel pins in the pin-retained group and a filled, 4-META–based bonding resin in the bonded group. For both groups, the authors left in place any retention form remaining after removal of an old restoration but did not enhance it.

Results. At four years, six restorations had failed. At five years, of the 40 restorations available for evaluation, three had failed, for a total of nine failed restorations; seven of those were pin-retained and two were bonded. Using the Fisher exact test to compare the groups at five years, the authors found no significant difference in failure rate, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, tooth sensitivity or tooth vitality.

Conclusions. At five years, there was no difference in the performance of pin-retained amalgam restorations and bonded amalgam restorations. This study will be continued for at least a sixth year.

Clinical Implications. Bonding with a filled, 4-META–based bonding resin appears to be a satisfactory method of retaining large amalgam restorations replacing cusps.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Vaught Mechanical Versus Chemical Retention for Restoring Complex Restorations: What Is the Evidence? J Dent Educ., October 1, 2007; 71(10): 1356 - 1362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]