Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 345–349 | Cite as

Repairing ditched amalgam restorations is less time and tooth structure-consuming than replacement

  • T. L. Lenzi
  • M. Marquezan
  • G. C. Bonini
  • L. B. Camargo
  • D. P. RaggioEmail author
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the dental structure loss associated with procedures of replacement or maintenance for ditched amalgam restorations in primary molars and the time required to perform each treatment.

Methods

Ditched amalgam restorations (n = 40) were submitted to four different strategies: polishing group—polishing and finishing of restorations; amalgam group—replacement of ditched amalgam restorations with new amalgam restorations; resin group—replacement of amalgam restorations with resin composite restorations; flowable resin group—filling the ditch with a flowable resin composite. The teeth were analysed with a stereomicroscope and the areas pre- and post-treatment were determined by image analysis software to evaluate structural loss. The time required to perform each treatment was recorded in seconds.

Statistics

Student’s t test was used to compare areas pre- and post-treatments. ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests (p < 0.05) were used to compare differences among groups and the time to perform each procedure.

Results

Dental structure loss was observed in resin and amalgam groups. Replacing the restorations with amalgam took more time, while polishing and applying flowable resin composite consumed less than half of the time compared with amalgam and resin groups.

Conclusion

Maintenance of ditched amalgam restorations by polishing and sealing preserves dental structure and involves less time compared with that for replacement of restorations.

Keywords

Dental materials Primary tooth Dental amalgam Operative dentistry Dental restoration failure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants of the Post-Graduation in Paediatric Dentistry Seminar of FOUSP for the critical comments put forth, FAPESP and CNPq for financial support.

References

  1. Adegbembo AO, Watson PA. Removal, replacement and placement of amalgam restorations by Ontario dentists in 2002. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005;71:565.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum IR, Newton JT, Wilson NHF. A cohort investigation of the changes in vocational dental practitioners’ views on repairing defective direct composite restorations. Br Dent J 2005; Suppl pp 27–30.Google Scholar
  3. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjör IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent. 2001;29:317–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassin AM, Pearson GJ, Picton DC. Fissure sealants as a means of prolonging longevity of amalgam restorations–an in vitro feasibility study. Clin Mater. 1991;7:203–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crim GA, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage: the effect of storage and cycling duration. J Prost Dent. 1987;57:574–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elderton RJ. Clinical studies concerning re-restoration of teeth. Adv Dent Res. 1990;4:4–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Forss H, Widstrom E. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004;62:82–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gordan VV, Riley JL 3rd, Blaser PK, Mjör IA. Two-year clinical evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 2006;31:418–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mjör IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Inter Dent J. 2000;50:361–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moncada GC, Martin J, Fernandez E, et al. Alternative treatments for resin-based composite and amalgam restorations with marginal defects: a 12-month clinical trial. Gen Dent. 2006;54:314–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Moncada G, Fernández E, Martín J, et al. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a 2-year clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2008;33:258–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moncada G, Martin J, Fernández E, et al. Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations: a 3-year clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140:425–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Monse-Schneider B, Heinrich-Weltzien R, Schug D, Sheiham A, Borutta A. Assessment of manual restorative treatment (MRT) with amalgam in high-caries Filipino children: results after 2 years. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31:129–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murdoch-Kinch CA, McLean ME. Minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134:87–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Roberts HW, Charlton DG, Murchison DF. Repair of non-carious amalgam margin defects. Oper Dent. 2001;26:273–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Sardenberg F, Bonifácio CC, Braga MM, Imparato JCP, Mendes FM. Evaluation of the dental structure loss produced during maintenance or replacement of occlusal amalgam restorations. Braz Oral Res. 2008;22:242–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smales RJ, Hawthorne WS. Long-term survival of repaired amalgams, recemented crowns and gold castings. Oper Dent. 2004;29:249–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. L. Lenzi
    • 1
  • M. Marquezan
    • 2
  • G. C. Bonini
    • 3
  • L. B. Camargo
    • 1
  • D. P. Raggio
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of Santa MariaSanta MariaBrazil
  3. 3.Paediatric Dentistry DepartmentSão Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Research CentreCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations