View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Retention of large amalgam restorations with amalgam pins and Amalgambond
Clinical Question In patients with large amalgam restorations, do amalgam pins or amalgambond provide better retention?
Clinical Bottom Line There is no difference in the success rate of large amalgam restorations using either amalgam pins or Amalgambond for retention. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 15195725Summitt/2004Sixty amalgam restorations (32 bonded; 28 pins). Doesn’t specify how many patients or age of patients.Randomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsPatients were followed for six years and at the end of this time period, 11 restorations had failed (3 bonded and 8 pinned). The study employed Fisher’s exact test to compare the groups. Using this test, it was determined that there was no significant difference between the use of bonding and pins in the success of amalgam restorations.
Evidence Search PubMed search using the following terms: "Dental Pins"[Mesh] AND "Amalgambond"[Substance Name]
Comments on
The Evidence
To be included in the study, each patient receiving an amalgam restoration was required to have at least one cusp replaced as well as one proximal surface on a posterior tooth. If an old restoration was being replaced, any retentive features present were left intact, but not enhanced in any way. The pins used were Coltene-Whaledent self-threading stainless steel pins. The bonding agent utilized was Amalgambond Plus with HPA powder (High Performance Additive). Coin toss determined type. Failures included teeth needing to be replaced, requiring major repair, requiring endodontic therapy, or extraction. It is unfortunate that more details regarding the patients in this study were not included.
Applicability This evidence is applicable to any patient receiving an amalgam restoration that includes at least one cusp.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords Amalgambond; pins; amalgam; retention; restoration
ID# 513
Date of submission: 01/14/2010spacer
E-mail FrancisJ@uthscsa.edu
Author Erin E. Williams
Co-author(s) J. Christian Francis
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Rita Renee Parma, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail PARMA@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
by Lorena Ray (San Antonio, Texas) on 04/17/2012
I conducted a search on this topic on April 2012 and found a more recent article: PubMed ID 17923714. This Review concluded the same results as published in this CAT and also includes additional documentation.

Return to Found CATs list