These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Four Different Materials in the Repair of Amalgam Restorations: An In Vitro Study.
    Author: Chavan A, Darak P, Vallabhaneni S, Peerzade SM, Shenvi S, Patil TN.
    Journal: J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Jul 01; 21(7):741-747. PubMed ID: 33020356.
    Abstract:
    AIM: This study was aimed to compare the microleakage of amalgam restorations repaired with bonded amalgam, composite resin, ormocer, and glass ionomer restorative material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty extracted maxillary human premolars were prepared and restored with class I amalgam. A simulated defect was prepared that included the cavosurface margin on restorations, and the premolars were assigned to four treatment groups (n = 15): In group I, premolars were treated by bonded amalgam; in group II, premolars were repaired with composite resin; in group III, premolars were repaired by ormocer; and in group IV, premolars were repaired with glass ionomer restorative material. The teeth were immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution, thermocycled, sectioned longitudinally, and then blindly observed under a stereomicroscope by three trained examiners. Microleakage was evaluated using a 0-4 scale for dye penetration, and data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: The microleakage values were more in the group repaired with glass ionomer restorative material and the Chi-squared test showed no significant difference in between the groups repaired with bonded amalgam, composite resin, and ormocer, but showed significant difference between the groups repaired with ormocer and glass ionomer restorative materials and between composite resin and glass ionomer restorative materials. CONCLUSION: None of the restorative techniques evaluated were able to completely eliminate marginal microleakage. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results seem to be favorable within the limits of the in vitro conditions of the present study; however, the in vivo conditions are the best for clinically relevant findings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]