COMPARATIVE S.E.M. OBSERVATION OF CLASSICAL AND BONDED AMALGAM RESTORATIONS
暂无分享,去创建一个
INTRODUCTION: Dental amalgam has passed the “time test” for over 150 years as a strong, durable and relatively inexpensive restorative material. However, recently, a strong wave of “anti-amalgamists” is trying to rid amalgam because of disadvantages including microleakage, lack of adhesion to tooth structure or sensitivity. Amalgam bonding agents and new amalgam alloys were developed to address these concerns. In this study we compared the SEM images of the amalgam-tooth structure interface in different types of classical and bonded amalgam restorations. METHODS: Freshly extracted non-carious premolars and molars were collected and stored in distilled water. Each tooth was prepared as followed: ideal class I cavities preparations were performed using a water-sprayed, high-speed handpiece with new diamond-coated burs. Each cavity was cleaned and dried. We used two types of alloys: Lojic+ (SDI Australia) – a single
[1] Y. Shimada,et al. Bonding amalgam to enamel: shear bond strength and SEM morphology. , 2001, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[2] M. Vargas,et al. Amalgam shear bond strength to dentin using single-bottle primer/adhesive systems. , 1999, American journal of dentistry.
[3] H Devlin,et al. New developments in tooth restoration with amalgam. , 1993, Dental update.
[4] M. Staninec. Retention of amalgam restorations: undercuts versus bonding. , 1989, Quintessence international.