Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         


ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 799-803
Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: A microleakage study

1 College of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
2 State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros, MG, Brazil
3 University of Florida P. O. Box 100415, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

Correspondence Address:
Daniela Araújo Veloso Popoff
College of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.94672

Rights and Permissions

Background: Total replacement is the most common technique for defective amalgam restorations, and it represents a major part of restorative dental treatment. Repair is an alternative option for amalgam restorations with localized defects. Aims: This study compared microleakage of amalgam restorations repaired by bonded amalgam or composite resin. Materials and Methods: Thirty extracted human pre-molars were prepared and restored with class I amalgam. A simulated defect was prepared that included the cavosurface margin on restorations, and the pre-molars were assigned to two treatment groups (n=15): In group 1, premolars were treated by composite resin (34% Tooth Conditioner Gel + Adper Single Bond 2 + Z100) and in group 2, premolars were repaired by bonded amalgam (34% Tooth Conditioner Gel + Prime and Bond 2.1 + Permite C). The teeth were immersed in a 50% silver nitrate solution, thermocycled, sectioned longitudinally and then observed by three examiners using a stereomicroscope. Microleakage was evaluated using a 0-4 scale for dye penetration, and data was analyzed by Kruskal Wallis and Dunn tests. Results: Neither of the two methods eliminated microleakage completely. Composite resin was significantly the most effective for repair/tooth interface sealing (score 0 = 80.0%; P=0.0317). For the repair/restoration interface, composite resin was also statistically more effective as a sealant (score 0=66%; P=0.0005) when compared to the bonded amalgam technique (score 0=13%; P=0.0005). Conclusions: The use of adhesive systems significantly affected the ability to seal the repair/ tooth interface. However, at the level of the repair/restoration interface, the bonded amalgam technique may increase microleakage.

Print this article     Email this article

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded310    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal