Restorative dentistry: Dental post-operative sensitivity associated with a gallium-based restorative material

Introduction This study forms part of a 2-year longitudinal clinical trial to compare the performance of a gallium-based restorative material (Galloy) with a high copper, mercury based (Dispersalloy) control material.Method Following Ethical Committee approval, 25 galloy restorations and 25 Dispersalloy controls were placed in 14 adult patients, by a single operator. The cavities were of moderate size, indicating the use of amalgam as the restorative material. All restorations were polished within 1 week of placement, photographed and a silicone impression of the tooth and restoration recorded. In addition, a visual analogue scale (VAS), indicating the extent of any post-operative sensitivity, was completed by each patient for each restoration, immediately prior to polishing. A score of 0 indicated no sensitivity, while a score of 10 indicated the greatest possible sensitivity. At 6-month recall, the VAS scores, silicone impressions and photographs were repeated.Results The mean sensitivity scores for the galloy and Dispersalloy restorations at 1 week were 5.1 (+/–3.4) and 1.0 (+/–1.5), respectively and at 6 months, 1.8 (+/–3.0) and 0.2 (+/–0.1) respectively. The differences between these means at 1 week and at 6 months were significant (P < 0.01).Conclusion Galloy restorations were associated with a much greater severity of post-operative sensitivity than Dispersalloy restorations.

[1]  D. L. Smith,et al.  Alloys of gallium with powdered metals as possible replacement for dental amalgam. , 1956, The Journal of the American Dental Association (1939).

[2]  S. Dunne,et al.  The use of topical guanethidine in the relief of dentine hypersensitivity: a controlled study , 1993, Pain.

[3]  F. Blair,et al.  The physical properties of a gallium alloy restorative material. , 1995, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[4]  S. Dunne,et al.  Current materials and techniques for direct restorations in posterior teeth. Part 2: Resin composite systems. , 1997, International dental journal.

[5]  T. Chambers,et al.  Gallium inhibits bone resorption by a direct effect on osteoclasts. , 1990, Bone and mineral.

[6]  P. Band,et al.  Assessment of adult cancer pain: Shortcomings of current methods , 1988, Pain.

[7]  S. Dunne,et al.  Current materials and techniques for direct restorations in posterior teeth. Part 1: Silver amalgam. , 1997, International dental journal.

[8]  B. Fowler,et al.  Alteration in protein synthesis in primary cultures of rat kidney proximal tubule epithelial cells by exposure to gallium, indium, and arsenite. , 1990, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[9]  R. Waterstrat,et al.  GALLIUM-PALLADIUM ALLOYS AS DENTAL FILLING MATERIAL. , 1964, Public health reports.

[10]  E. Huskisson,et al.  Accuracy of subjective measurements made with or without previous scores: an important source of error in serial measurement of subjective states. , 1979, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[11]  A. Gift,et al.  Visual Analogue Scales: Measurement of Subjective Phenomena , 1989, Nursing research.

[12]  Clark Ge,et al.  Designing hypersensitivity clinical studies. , 1990 .

[13]  J. Osborne,et al.  2-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy. , 1996, American Journal of Dentistry.

[14]  D. L. Smith,et al.  Some physical properties of gallium-copper-tin alloys. , 1956, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[15]  R. Waterstrat.  Evaluation of a gallium-palladium-tin alloy for restorative dentistry. , 1969, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[16]  J. Osborne,et al.  Mechanical properties and clinical performance of a gallium restorative material. , 1995, Operative dentistry.