View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Pin-Retained and Bonded Amalgam Restorations Show Similar Clinical Failure Rates
Clinical Question How does the clinical failure rate of bonded amalgam restorations compare to mechanically retained amalgam restorations for healthy adult patients?
Clinical Bottom Line There is no statistically significant difference in failure rate between pin-retained amalgam restorations and bonded amalgam restorations. (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/2004Healthy adult patient requiring posterior restorationsRandomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsAfter six years there was no difference in the failure rate (as measured by marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, tooth sensitivity or tooth vitality) between pin-retained amalgam restorations and bonded amalgam restorations.
Evidence Search ("Amalgambond" [Supplementary Concept]) OR "Dental Amalgam"[Mesh] ...view in PubMed
Comments on
The Evidence
As time progresses and more data become available, further research should be conducted to substantiate this conclusion and perhaps identify specific scenarios (i.e., less than ideal isolation) in which the use of bonded amalgam may be contraindicated.
Applicability This information is highly applicable due to the relatively recent introduction of bonded amalgam restorations into the clinical setting and its rapid replacement of traditional mechanical retention features in many posterior restorations. At this time it appears that bonded restorations provide similar retention as compared to amalgam restorations that employ mechanical retention features.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords permanent dental restoration, amalgambond, marginal integrity, retention, dental bonding
ID# 486
Date of submission: 01/07/2010spacer
E-mail hogans@uthscsa.edu
Author Seth Larson
Co-author(s) Steven Hogan
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Joseph Berrong, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail berrong@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 Hardik Chodavadia (San Antonio,TX) on 04/16/2012
I conducted a PubMed search related to the subject of this CAT April 2012 and I found a more recent publication that backs the findings of the published CAT to a certain extent. PubMed ID: 19821423.

Return to Found CATs list