AIM: In an effort to minimize tooth preparation, yet provide additional retention to compromised tooth structure, bonded amalgam restorations were introduced. Various resin-based adhesives have been tried earlier under bonded amalgam restorations. Still there are controversies regarding the outcome of bonded amalgam restorations regarding their adaptability to the tooth structure and microleakage. Therefore, this study was undertaken to compare the microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard Class I cavities were prepared on occlusal surfaces of 60 human molars. Teeth (n=60) were divided into three groups according to the material employed, as follows: group I: amalgam with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (type I); group II: amalgam with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) and group III: amalgam with Copalex varnish as a control. Following restoration, the teeth were submitted to thermal cycling. The teeth were subsequently immersed in 2% rhodamine B dye under vacuum for 48 hours and sectioned to allow the assessment of microleakage under stereomicroscope. RESULTS: The values were tabulated and the results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's post hoc test and Kruskal-Wallis test. Amalgam with type I GIC showed the least leakage with no statistically significant difference (P value 0.226) when compared to amalgam with Panavia F 2.0 and amalgam with varnish (P value 0.107). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that bonded amalgam with type I GIC is a good alternative to amalgam with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) and amalgam with varnish for large restorations, with the added advantages of GICs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bonded amalgam restorations prevent over-preparation and reduce the tooth flexure. GIC type I under amalgam provides chemical bonding in between amalgam and tooth structure and thus reduces the microleakage.
AIM: In an effort to minimize tooth preparation, yet provide additional retention to compromised tooth structure, bonded amalgam restorations were introduced. Various resin-based adhesives have been tried earlier under bonded amalgam restorations. Still there are controversies regarding the outcome of bonded amalgam restorations regarding their adaptability to the tooth structure and microleakage. Therefore, this study was undertaken to compare the microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standard Class I cavities were prepared on occlusal surfaces of 60 human molars. Teeth (n=60) were divided into three groups according to the material employed, as follows: group I: amalgam with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (type I); group II: amalgam with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) and group III: amalgam with Copalex varnish as a control. Following restoration, the teeth were submitted to thermal cycling. The teeth were subsequently immersed in 2% rhodamine B dye under vacuum for 48 hours and sectioned to allow the assessment of microleakage under stereomicroscope. RESULTS: The values were tabulated and the results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's post hoc test and Kruskal-Wallis test. Amalgam with type I GIC showed the least leakage with no statistically significant difference (P value 0.226) when compared to amalgam with Panavia F 2.0 and amalgam with varnish (P value 0.107). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that bonded amalgam with type I GIC is a good alternative to amalgam with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) and amalgam with varnish for large restorations, with the added advantages of GICs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bonded amalgam restorations prevent over-preparation and reduce the tooth flexure. GIC type I under amalgam provides chemical bonding in between amalgam and tooth structure and thus reduces the microleakage.