PURPOSE: To compare the shear fracture resistance of complex amalgam restorations retained by four regular TMS pins, four amalgapins, Amalgambond, or four amalgapins in conjunction with Amalgambond. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty maxillary molars free of caries were mounted in acrylic resin and the occlusal surfaces were ground flat to within 2 mm of the CEJ. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups of 15 teeth. Each group provided one of the four different methods of resistance. Dispersalloy was condensed into the prepared specimens. The specimens were adjusted to provide 4 mm height of amalgam. After 1000 thermocycles, the specimens were loaded at a 45 degree angle to the occlusal surface at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/second. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that Amalgambond, four amalgapins and four amalgapins in conjunction with Amalgambond provided more resistance to shear force than four regular TMS pins.
PURPOSE: To compare the shear fracture resistance of complex amalgam restorations retained by four regular TMS pins, four amalgapins, Amalgambond, or four amalgapins in conjunction with Amalgambond. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty maxillary molars free of caries were mounted in acrylic resin and the occlusal surfaces were ground flat to within 2 mm of the CEJ. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups of 15 teeth. Each group provided one of the four different methods of resistance. Dispersalloy was condensed into the prepared specimens. The specimens were adjusted to provide 4 mm height of amalgam. After 1000 thermocycles, the specimens were loaded at a 45 degree angle to the occlusal surface at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/second. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed that Amalgambond, four amalgapins and four amalgapins in conjunction with Amalgambond provided more resistance to shear force than four regular TMS pins.