 |
| Title |
Similar Longevity of Bonded Amalgam Restorations and Conventionally Retained Amalgam Restorations over 2 Years |
| Clinical Question |
In patients requiring complex multi-surface restorations, do bonded amalgam restorations perform better than do conventionally-retained amalgam restorations? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Bonded amalgams offer no improvement over conventional amalgam restorations over 2 years. (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) 19821423 | Fedorowicz/2009 | Adults and adolescents with molar and bicuspid teeth requiring Class 1 and 2 amalgam restorations | Cochrane Review | | Key results | The Cochrane Review did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a 2-year period. | |
| Evidence Search |
Search amalgapins versus amalgam bonding agents Search fracture resistance amalgapins Search adhesively bonded amalgam |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The findings of randomized controlled trials comparing bonded vs. non-bonded amalgam restorations were evaluated. Class I and Class II restorations were included, as were all types of bonding agents. The primary outcome was survival of the restoration. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, dental caries, marginal deterioration, economic data and adverse effects. |
| Applicability |
This information is applicable to all patients requiring complex multi-surface amalgam restorations. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
multi-surface restorations, complex amalgams, retentive features, amalgam bonding agent
|
| ID# |
633 |
| Date of submission: |
04/14/2010 Revised: 03/22/2012 |
| E-mail |
robbinsr@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Ryan Robbins |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Joseph Bartoloni, DDS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
Bartoloni@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
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Alexandria Tami, Max Buchwald, Sylvia Lewis, (San Antonio, TX) on 01/10/2014
On January 2013 we conducted a Pubmed search on this topic and found a study that examined composite vs. amalgam and pins vs bonding agent which showed better retention but that conventional vs. bonding showed no significant difference on the retention of the amalgam or composite restorations. This agrees with the findings of article #633. | |
|
|
