References

Ring ME.New York: Abrahams; 1985
Anderson MH, McCoy RB., 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1993
Berry TG, Summitt JB, Chung AKH, Osborne JW. Amalgam at the new millennium. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129:1547-1556
Eames WB. Preparation and condensation of amalgam with low mercury alloy ratio. J Am Dent Assoc. 1959; 58:78-83
Navarro MFL, Franco EB, Bastos PAM, Carvalho RM, Teixiera LC. Clinical evaluation of a gallium alloy as a posterior restorative material. Quintessence Int. 1996; 27:315-320
Dunne SM, Abraham R, Pankhurst CL. A 3-year longitudinal, controlled clinical study of a gallium-based restorative material. Br Dent J. 2005; 198:355-359
Osborne JW, Summitt JB. 2-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy. Am J Dent. 1996; 9:191-194
Osborne JW, Albino JE. Psychological and medical effects of mercury intake from dental amalgam. Am J Dent. 1999; 12:151-156
Osborne JW, Swift EJ. Critical appraisal: safety of dental amalgam. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004; 16:377-387
Vimy MJ, Lorscheider FL. Serial measurements of intra-oral air mercury: estimation of the daily dose from dental amalgam. J Dent Res. 1985; 64:1072-1075
Mackert JR Factors affecting estimation or dental amalgam mercury exposure from measurements of mercury vapour levels in intra-oral and expired air. J Dent Res. 1987; 66:1775-1780
Berglund A. Estimation by a 24-hour study of the daily dose of intra-oral mercury vapour inhaled after release from dental amalgam. J Dent Res. 1990; 69:1646-1651
Saxe SR, Wekstein MW, Kryscio RJ, Henry RG, Cornett CR, Snowdon DA, Grant FT, Schmitt FA, Donegan SJ, Wekstein DR, Ehmann WD, Markesbery WR. Alzheimer's Disease, dental amalgam and mercury. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999; 128:191-199
Dalen K, Lygre GB, Kleve H, Gjerdet ND, Askevold E. Memory functions in persons with dental amalgam. J Dent. 2003; 31:487-492
Osborne JW, Summitt JB. Autism caused by dental amalgam?. Oper Dent. 2003; 28:665-666
Yip HK, Cutress T. Dental amalgam and human health. Int Dent J. 2003; 63:464-466
Wahl MJ. Amalgam – resurrection and redemption. Part 1: The clinical and legal mythology of anti-amalgam. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32:525-535
Wahl MJ. Amalgam – resurrection and redemption. Part 2: The medical mythology of anti-amalgam. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32:696-710
Roberts HW, Charlton DG. The release of mercury from amalgam restorations and its health effects: A review. Oper Dent. 2009; 34:605-614
Shenker BJ, Maserejian NN, Zhasng A, McKinley S. Immune function effects of dental amalgam in children: A randomised controlled trial. J Amer Dent Assoc. 2008; 139:1496-1505
Bellinger DC, Trachtenburrg F, Daniel D, McKinley S. Neurophsychological and renal effects of dental amalgam in children. J Amer Med Assoc. 2006; 205:1775-1783
Wahl MJ. A resin alternative for posterior teeth: Questions and answers on dental amalgam. Dent Update. 2003; 30:256-262
Brown D, Sherriff M. Twenty years of mercury monitoring in dental surgeries. Br Dent J. 2002; 192:437-441
Jokstad A, Fan PL. Amalgam waste management. Int Dent J. 2006; 56:147-153
Merfield DP, Taylor A, Gemmell DM, Parrish JA. Mercury intoxication in a dental surgery following unreported spillage. Br Dent J. 1976; 141:179-186
Ritchie KA, Gilmour WH, Macdonald EB, Burke FJT, MacGowan DA, Dale IM, Hammersley R, Hamilton RM, Binnie V, Collington D. Health and neuropsychological functioning of dentists exposed to mercury. Occup Environ Med. 2002; 59:287-293
Ritchie KA, Burke FJT, Gilmour WH, Macdonald EB, Dale IM, Hamilton RM, MacGowan DA, Binnie V, Collington D, Hammersley R. Mercury vapour levels in dental practices and body mercury levels of dentists and controls. Br Dent J. 2004; 197:625-632
Lucarotti PSK, Holder RL, Burke FJT. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): Variation by type of restoration and re-intervention. J Dent. 2005; 33:805-815
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocre Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004; 29:481-508
Shavell HM. Romancing the beautiful silver maiden: an allegorical love story. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005; 17:49-58
Jones DW. A Scandinavian tragedy. Br Dent J. 2008; 204:233-234
Burke FJT. Amalgam to tooth-coloured materials – implications for clinical practice and dental education: governmental restrictions and amalgam-usage survey results. J Dent. 2004; 32:343-350
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010
Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972; 132:133-135
Combe EC, Burke FJT, Douglas WH. Clinical Dental Materials.Chicago: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1999
Randall RC, Wilson NHF. Glass ionomer restoratives: A systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res. 1999; 78:628-637
Chemflex Technical Manual.Germany: Dentsply De Trey; 1998
Ketac Molar Quick Product Brochure. http://www.3MESPE
GC Fuji IX and Fuji IX GP Fast Manual. http://www.gceurope
Burke FJT, Siddons C, Phipps S, Bardha J, Crisp RJ, Dopheide B. Clinical performance of reinforced glass ionomer restorations placed in UK dental practices. Br Dent J. 2007; 203
Scholtanus JD, Huysmans M-C DMJM. Clinical failure of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a six year period: A retrospective study. J Dent. 2007; 35:156-162
Phillips RW, Avery DR, Mehra R, Swartz ML, McCune RJ. Observations on a composite resin for class II restorations: Three year report. J Prosthet Dent. 1973; 30:891-897
Ferracane JL. Resin composite – state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:29-38
Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Update on dental composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994; 125:687-701
Barucci-Pfister N, Gohring TN. Subjective and objective perceptions of specular gloss and surface roughness of esthetic resin composites before and after artificial aging. Am J Dent. 2009; 22:102-110
Uctasli S., Shortall A.C., Burke FJT. Effect of accelerated restorative techniques on the microleakage of Class II composites. Am Dent. 2002; 15:153-158
Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDRTM technology. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:348-355
Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJP. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012; 40:500-505
Mackenzie L, Burke FJT, Shortall ACC. A practical guide revisited. Dent Update. 2012; 39:233-236
Mackenzie L, Shortall ACC, Burke FJT. Direct posterior composites: A practical guide. Dent Update. 2009; 36:71-95
Lee IB, Son HH, Um CM. Rheologic properties of flowable, conventional hybrid and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2003; 18:298-307
Fagundes TC, Brata THE, Carvalho CAR, Franco EB, van Dijken JWV, Navarro MFL. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites. J Amer Dent Assoc. 2009; 140:447-454
Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjor IA. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material. J Amer Dent Assoc. 2007; 138:621-627
Burke FJT, Palin WM, James A, MacKenzie L, Sands P. The current status of materials for posterior composite restorations: The advent of low shrink. Dent Update. 2009; 36:401-409
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, James A, Mackenzie L, Pal A, Sands P, Thompson O, Palin WM. Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:622-630
Bausch JR, de Lange K, Davidson CL, Peters A, de Gee AJ. Clinical significance of polymerisation shrinkage of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48:59-67
Ilie N, Hickel R. Resin composite restorative materials. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56:59-66
Kurokawa R, Finger WJ, Hoffmann M. Interactions of self-etch adhesives with resin composite. J Dent. 2007; 35:923-929
Filtek Silorane Product Profile. 2007;
Weinmann R, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloanes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:68-74
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. Three year evaluation of a low shrinkage composite in posterior teeth. J Dent Res. 2012; 90:(Spec. Iss A)
Chung KH, Greener EH. Correlation between degree of conversion, filler concentration and the mechanical properties of posterior composite resins. J Oral Rehabil. 1990; 17:487-494
Ferracane JL. Resin-based composite performance: Are there some things that we can't predict?. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:51-58
Opdam NJM, Bronkhurst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BAC. A retrospective clinical study of composite and amalgam restorations. J Dent. 2007; 23:2-7
Opdam NJM, Bronkhurst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans M-C DNJM. 12-year survival of composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:1063-1067
Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donasillo TA, Canci MS, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, Opdam NJM, Demarco FF. 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:955-963
van Dijken JWV. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow up. J Dent. 2010; 38:469-474
Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Reinelt R, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities after six years. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:455-464
Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:87-101
Burke FJT. Attitudes to posterior composite filling materials: A survey of 80 patients. Dent Update. 1989; 16:114-120

Dental materials – what goes where? class I and II cavities

From Volume 40, Issue 4, May 2013 | Pages 260-274

Authors

FJ Trevor Burke

DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS, FDS (RCS Edin), FDS RCS (Eng), FCG Dent, FADM,

Articles by FJ Trevor Burke

Louis Mackenzie

BDS, FDS RCPS FCGDent, Head Dental Officer, Denplan UK, Andover

General Dental Practitioner, Birmingham; Clinical Lecturer, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, Birmingham, UK.

Articles by Louis Mackenzie

Peter Sands

MSc, BDS, LDS, MCGD

Didcot, Oxfordshire

Articles by Peter Sands

Abstract

Dental amalgam has helped maintain dental public health in the developed world for over a century. However, its days appear to be numbered. Notwithstanding the environmental consideration, there is an ever increasing demand from dental patients for non-metallic and tooth-coloured restorations in their posterior teeth. This paper gives a brief history of dental amalgam and critically appraises the alternative materials, the principal of these being resin-based composite.

Clinical Relevance: The majority of practitioners carry out large numbers of Class I and II restorations, so an appraisal of the pros and cons of the alternatives may assist in decision-making.

Article

The first issue of Dental Update contained a paper on pinned retention for amalgam and, while the current status of pins is also discussed in this issue, this paper aims to examine the current status of dental amalgam and alternatives for directly placed Class I and II restorations.

The history of amalgam is uncertain: however, there is a report of the use of a silver paste being used as early as 659AD in China,1 with its first use as a dental material being reported in France in 1826.2 The years passed, with many other metals being combined with mercury, until GV Black produced a formula, in 1895, for a dental amalgam which provided reasonable clinical performance. This remained unchanged for circa 70 years3 until Eames4 recognized the benefit of a 1 to 1 ratio of mercury to alloy, thus allowing a substantial reduction from the levels previously recommended (as high as 8 to 5). High copper content alloys followed, with these creating a copper-tin phase which was less susceptible to corrosion than the tin-mercury gamma 2 phase present in low copper content alloys.3

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available