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.
RCT Entities:
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.