Farzaneh Ahrari1, Mahsima Nojoomian, Horieh Moosavi. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Dental Research Center of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Mashhad, Iran. farzaneh.ahrari@gmail.com
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this clinical study was to compare the fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and rate of recurrent caries of bonded and nonbonded amalgam restorations in endodontically treated premolar teeth. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 36 patients with endodontically treated maxillary first or second premolars were selected and divided into three groups. The treatments in all groups consisted of lingual cusp coverage and cementation of a prefabricated intracanal post (No. 2 long, Dentatus USA, New York, NY, USA). One type of cavity liner was used for each group as follows: copal varnish (Group A), Amalgambond Plus (Group B), and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (Group C). The teeth were then restored with Cinalux high-copper spherical amalgam (Cinalux, Sh. Dr Faghihi Dental Co., Tehran, Iran). After one year, fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries were evaluated. Fischer's exact test was used for statistical analysis using a 0.05 percent significance level. RESULTS: There was no significant difference among groups with respect to fracture resistance (p=0.49). However, significant differences in marginal adaptation existed among the three groups (p=0.02) and no recurrent caries were found in any of the restored teeth. CONCLUSION: Bonding amalgam restorations using Amalgambond Plus and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus did not improve the fracture resistance or affect the resistance to secondary caries in endodontically treated premolar teeth. However, the teeth in both these bonded groups showed significant improvement in marginal adaptation compared with restorations placed with copal varnish (p=0.02). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Amalgambond Plus or Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive resins significantly improved marginal adaptation of amalgam compared with copal varnish, but did not enhance fracture resistance or affect the prevention of secondary caries.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of this clinical study was to compare the fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and rate of recurrent caries of bonded and nonbonded amalgam restorations in endodontically treated premolar teeth. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 36 patients with endodontically treated maxillary first or second premolars were selected and divided into three groups. The treatments in all groups consisted of lingual cusp coverage and cementation of a prefabricated intracanal post (No. 2 long, Dentatus USA, New York, NY, USA). One type of cavity liner was used for each group as follows: copal varnish (Group A), Amalgambond Plus (Group B), and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (Group C). The teeth were then restored with Cinalux high-copper spherical amalgam (Cinalux, Sh. Dr Faghihi Dental Co., Tehran, Iran). After one year, fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries were evaluated. Fischer's exact test was used for statistical analysis using a 0.05 percent significance level. RESULTS: There was no significant difference among groups with respect to fracture resistance (p=0.49). However, significant differences in marginal adaptation existed among the three groups (p=0.02) and no recurrent caries were found in any of the restored teeth. CONCLUSION: Bonding amalgam restorations using Amalgambond Plus and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus did not improve the fracture resistance or affect the resistance to secondary caries in endodontically treated premolar teeth. However, the teeth in both these bonded groups showed significant improvement in marginal adaptation compared with restorations placed with copal varnish (p=0.02). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Amalgambond Plus or Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive resins significantly improved marginal adaptation of amalgam compared with copal varnish, but did not enhance fracture resistance or affect the prevention of secondary caries.