China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Treatment Planning
Published in M S Duggal, M E J Curzon, S A Fayle, K J Toumba, A J Robertson, Restorative Techniques in Paediatric Dentistry, 2021
M S Duggal, M E J Curzon, S A Fayle, K J Toumba, A J Robertson
Various research groups have studied the longevity or failure rate of restorations of primary teeth. Our own work on this (Figure 1.12) has shown that where there has been caries on at least two surfaces or a marginal ridge has broken, the preformed metal crown (stainless steel crown) is the restoration of choice. Amalgam at present is a valuable restorative material in the primary dentition, and is indicated for one-surface or small two-surface restorations.
Outcomes of Nonsurgical Retreatment and Endodontic Surgery: A Systematic Review
Published in Niall MH McLeod, Peter A Brennan, 50 Landmark Papers every Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon Should Know, 2020
Studies that have made direct comparisons among root-end filling materials have consistently shown that modern materials such as mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) offer more favourable clinical outcomes when compared with amalgam.15 Three-quarters of articles in this systematic review, however, reported the use of amalgam as a root-end filling material. A meta-analysis of root-end filling materials by Fernandez-Yanez et al.16 reported that amalgam is associated with the lowest success rate compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM), super ethoxybenzoic acid cement (Super-EBA), and MTA. They also noted that MTA was the most biocompatible material studied and offers the best physical properties in vitro.
Current Status and Role of Dental Polymeric Restorative Materials
Published in Mary Anne S. Melo, Designing Bioactive Polymeric Materials for Restorative Dentistry, 2020
Haohao Wang, Suping Wang, Xuedong Zhou, Jiyao Li, Libang He, Lei Cheng
Amalgam, a traditional material of dental restorations, has been successfully used for over 150 years and is still the choice in some places of the world because of its effectiveness and low cost (Spencer 2000). Amalgam mainly consists of liquid mercury with an alloy made of silver, tin, copper, and zinc solid particles (Anusavice et al. 2013). When mixing, the mercury and the alloy toundergo an amalgamation reaction and gradually condense and harden, forming a silver-grey mass (Anusavice et al. 2013). Because the material’s color differs from a natural tooth’s color, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, amalgam is mostly used for permanent posterior restorations. In long-term clinical application, amalgam showed higher longevity compared to composites (Moraschini et al. 2015). This may be because amalgam has a potential antimicrobial effect by releasing toxic mercury and results in low viability of oral biofilms on its surfaces (Busscher et al. 2010). However, the release of mercury is also the primary concern preventing the use of amalgam. An increasing attention has been paid to the risk of mercury exposure from amalgam and the potential adverse effects (Reinhardt 1988).
Interaction between microorganisms and dental material surfaces: general concepts and research progress
Published in Journal of Oral Microbiology, 2023
Yan Tu, Huaying Ren, Yiwen He, Jiaqi Ying, Yadong Chen
Amalgam is a special type of alloy formed by mercury and one or more metals. The amalgam used for dental restorations has a long history. In 1896, G. V. Black of the United States carried out much research on improving the composition, properties, blending, and filling methods of silver amalgam, gradually making silver amalgam an ideal filling material. Orstavik et al. tested nine commercial dental amalgams for antibacterial properties in vitro and found that all displayed certain antibacterial properties [30]. The reason was that amalgam could release metal ions such as Ag, Cu, Sn, and Hg; therefore, it had certain antibacterial properties. Farrugia et al. found that amalgams had higher antimicrobial activity than adhesive materials [31]. However, now because of the toxic effect of mercury on the human body and its pollution potential, the rate of amalgam use in dentistry has decreased significantly. Combining the rigidity and antibacterial properties of metals to reduce toxicity has become the focus of scientific research. Silver-based biomaterials (AgBMs) have good antimicrobial properties, including penetrating microbial cell membranes, damaging genetic material, and causing bacterial protein and enzyme dysfunction. Research has shown that AgBMs are antibacterial materials with high efficiency and low toxicity [26].
Dental caries and risk of newly-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: a nationwide population-based cohort study
Published in Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2023
Wuu-Tsun Perng, Kevin Sheng-Kai Ma, Hsin-Yu Hung, Yi-Chieh Tsai, Jing-Yang Huang, Pei-Lun Liao, Yao-Min Hung, James Cheng-Chung Wei
In addition, amalgam has been widely used as restorative material for dental caries management18,19. Adverse effects of amalgam include clinically observed enhanced mercury levels in blood, urine20–25, and teeth25. Moreover, there is evidence that dental amalgam is associated with autoimmune diseases, such as SLE, autoimmune thyroiditis, or multiple sclerosis in vitro22,23. Although amalgam has been gradually replaced by composite resins for dental caries management, they are containing inorganic particles, such as silica26, and xenoestrogens, such as Bisphenol-A (BPA) 4, have also been shown to trigger SLE in cross-sectional27 and in vitro studies4,28. However, there is a lack of longitudinal studies confirming those hypotheses. Therefore, the purpose of this nationwide population-based cohort study was to evaluate the risk of SLE following dental caries and exposure to restorative materials.
Bilayered composite restoration: the effect of layer thickness on fracture behavior
Published in Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry, 2020
Lippo Lassila, Eija Säilynoja, Roosa Prinssi, Pekka K. Vallittu, Sufyan Garoushi
In the last decades, dental restorative composites have been developed to replace amalgam because of its poor esthetic properties and suggested controversial biocompatibility [1]. Composite restorations have however shown good overall clinical performance in small and medium sized posterior cavities, with annual failure rates being between 1 and 3% [2,3]. The survival of posterior composite restorations strongly correlates with the size of the restorations. Bernardo et al. [4], reported an increase in annual failure rate from 0.95% for single-surface restorations to 9.43% for four or more surface restorations. Large restorations were shown to be more prone to fracture-related failures resulting in decreased longevity [5,6]. Higher susceptibility of large composite restorations to fracture can be attributed to the low fracture toughness of the composite material itself, and patient factors like bruxism [7,8]. Interestingly, Alvanforoush et al. [9], stated that the range of reported overall success rates for long-term clinical studies improved in the period 2006–2016 (minimum 64% to maximum 96.9%) compared with the 1995–2005 (minimum 50% to maximum 83%). However, the reasons for failure have shifted from high rates of secondary caries and wear to increasingly significant roles of restoration fractures, tooth fractures and endodontic treatment [9]. It is clear from the literature that contemporary particulate filled composites (PFCs) still demonstrate limitations because of their insufficient toughness when used in large restorations. Due to failures of this kind, it is still controversial, whether direct restorative PFCs should be used in large high-stress bearing applications such as in core build-ups or posterior crown restorations [1,3].