Dr. Cannon’s assertion that "Kerr does not state that OptiBond Solo Plus is to be used for amalgam bonding" is confusing, since the material used in our study was OptiBond, not OptiBond Solo Plus.
As stated in the article, the manufacturer’s directions were followed. A Kerr representative gave the recommended protocol to us, and the information provided included shear bond strength data using protocols bonding amalgam both with and without light-curing first. The light-cured technique reported higher bond strengths.
It was readily apparent from the information provided that the intent of the technique was to bond amalgam to tooth, not simply place the adhesive as a liner. So Dr. Cannon’s conclusion that the study did not really study bonded amalgams is based on his erroneous study of the article.
We made it clear within the article that the design used did not provide for an evaluation of the material’s ability to retain the amalgam or to unify the tooth. The purpose was to study postoperative sensitivity and long-term clinical performance. This also explains our use of the admix amalgam as opposed to the spherical.
We would like to note that in our discussion of the ability of adhesive resins to accomplish these objectives our opinions were supported by pertinent references. We are well aware of the fact that new research may provide different results and lead the profession to different conclusions.
We are of the opinion that the results of formal clinical research are the best foundation for the clinical practice of dentistry, better certainly than reliance on anecdotal reports from those who truly have little opportunity to do more than form an impression of clinical results. Such impressions are easily biased by individual incidents, good or bad, that are remarkable and are never subjected to formal testing.
