Amalgam (dentistry)

About: Amalgam (dentistry) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 3544 publications have been published within this topic receiving 62454 citations.

Restorative dental materials

Abstract: Scope and History of Restorative Materials,Applied Surface Phenomena, Optical, Thermal and Electrical Properties, Mechanical Properties, Biocompatibility of Dental Materials, Nature of Metals and Alloys, Polymers and Polymerization, Preventive Materials, Bonding to Dental Substrates, Amalgam, Impression Materials, Gypsum Products and Investments, Waxes, Noble Dental Alloys and Solders, Cast and Wrought Base Metal Alloys, Casting and Soldering Procedures, Ceramics, Metal-ceramics, Cements, Prosthetic Applications of Polymers

Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition.

Abstract: This review provides a survey on the longevity of restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities and assesses possible reasons for clinical failure. The dental literature, predominantly since 1990, was reviewed for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies of posterior restorations. Only studies investigating the clinical performance of restorations in permanent teeth were included. Longevity and annual failure rates of amalgam, direct composite restorations, compomers, glass ionomers and derivative products, composite and ceramic inlays and cast gold restorations were determined for Class I and II cavities. Mean (SD) annual failure rates in posterior stress-bearing cavities are: 3.0% (1.9) for amalgam restorations, 2.2% (2.0) for direct composites, 3.6% (4.2) for direct composites with inserts, 1.1% (1.2) for compomer restorations, 7.2% (5.6) for regular glass ionomer restorations, 7.1% (2.8) for tunnel glass ionomers, 6.0% (4.6) for ART glass ionomers, 2.9% (2.6) for composite inlays, 1.9% (1.8) for ceramic restorations, 1.7% (1.6) for CAD/CAM ceramic restorations and 1.4% (1.4) for cast gold inlays and onlays. Publications from 1990 forward showed better results. Indirect restorations exhibited a significantly lower mean annual failure rate than direct techniques (p=0.0031). Longevity of dental restorations is dependent upon many different factors, including material, patient- and dentist-related. Principal reasons for failure were secondary caries, fracture, marginal deficiencies, wear and postoperative sensitivity. We need to learn to distinguish between reasons that cause early failures and those that are responsible for restoration loss after several years of service.

Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial

Abstract: Background Failure of dental restorations is a major concern in dental practice. Replacement of failed restorations constitutes the majority of operative work. Clinicians should be aware of the longevity of, and likely reasons for the failure of, direct posterior restorations. In a long-term, randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the longevity of amalgam and composite. Subjects, Methods and Materials The authors randomly assigned one-half of the 472 subjects, whose age ranged from 8 through 12 years, to receive amalgam restorations in posterior teeth and the other one-half to receive resin-based composite restorations. Study dentists saw subjects annually to conduct follow-up oral examinations and take bitewing radiographs. Restorations needing replacement were failures. The dentists recorded differential reasons for restoration failure. Results Subjects received a total of 1,748 restorations at baseline, which the authors followed for up to seven years. Overall, 10.1 percent of the baseline restorations failed. The survival rate of the amalgam restorations was 94.4 percent; that of composite restorations was 85.5 percent. Annual failure rates ranged from 0.16 to 2.83 percent for amalgam restorations and from 0.94 to 9.43 percent for composite restorations. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure in both materials. Risk of secondary caries was 3.5 times greater in the composite group. Conclusion Amalgam restorations performed better than did composite restorations. The difference in performance was accentuated in large restorations and in those with more than three surfaces involved. Clinical Implications Use of amalgam appears to be preferable to use of composites in multisurface restorations of large posterior teeth if longevity is the primary criterion in material selection.

Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure.

Abstract: Purpose This article compiles a survey on the longevity of restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities and assesses possible reasons for failure. Materials and methods The dental literature predominantly of the last decade was reviewed for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies of posterior restorations. Only studies investigating the clinical performance of restorations in permanent teeth were included. Longevity and annual failure rates of amalgam, direct composite restorations, glass ionomers and derivative products, composite and ceramic inlays, and cast gold restorations were determined for Class I and II cavities. Results Annual failure rates in posterior stress-bearing restorations are: 0% to 7% for amalgam restorations, 0% to 9% for direct composites, 1.4% to 14.4% for glass ionomers and derivatives, 0% to 11.8% for composite inlays, 0% to 7.5% for ceramic restorations, 0% to 4.4% for CAD/CAM ceramic restorations, and 0% to 5.9% for cast gold inlays and onlays. Conclusion Longevity of dental restorations is dependent upon many different factors that are related to materials, the patient, and the dentist. The principal reasons for failure were secondary caries, fracture, marginal deficiencies, wear, and postoperative sensitivity. A distinction must be made between factors causing early failures and those that are responsible for restoration loss after several years of service.