Once again, a study has been printed in JADA that is of no clinical value and in fact promotes compromised care. I am referring to "Efficacy of Bonded and Nonbonded Amalgam in the Treatment of Teeth With Incomplete Fractures," by Richard Davis, D.D.S., and Johnie D. Overton, D.D.S., in April JADA.
The teeth pictured in their example clearly required onlays. An onlay is necessary when more than 50 percent of a cuspal incline is involved (per "Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics," Quintessence, 1978, Operative Dentistry. C.V. Mosby 1973; and "Clark’s Clinical Dentistry," Lippincott 1990).
The authors’ goal to determine if pin-retained or bonded amalgams are better is flawed from its very conception. Amalgam is a poor choice to restore these teeth. The idea that anyone would be interested in this study is an indictment on our profession’s "patch" mentality.
I also wonder if the participants in this study were informed that the restoration they were receiving was inferior and violated the most basic principles of restorative dentistry.
