[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
:: Volume 30, Issue 4 (10-2018) ::
J Islam Dent Assoc Iran 2018, 30(4): 132-138 Back to browse issues page
Longevity of Amalgam Build-Up Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth
Hamid Kermanshah * 1, Sholeh Ghabraei2, Mohammad Javad Kharrazifard3, Marzieh Monjazeb4, Negin Farahmandpour5
1- Associate Professor, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Research Member, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Dentist, Private Practice, Sydney, Australia
5- Restorative Dentistry Specialist, Hjørring, Denmark
Abstract:   (455 Views)
Background and Aim: Restoration of endodontically treated teeth is one of the most important and challenging topics in restorative dentistry. Longevity of such restorations is an essential factor in treatment planning. Amalgam build-up is a conservative method for restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the longevity of this type of restoration in endodontically treated molar teeth.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 110 endodontically treated molar teeth of 98 patients that had received amalgam build-up restorations with at least one cusp coverage with 3-10 years of longevity were evaluated. The restorations included mesio-occluso-distal (MOD;40%), disto-occlusal (DO;23%), mesio-occlusal (MO;17%) and complex amalgam restorations (20%). Binary logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results: Of all restorations, cracks were observed in 22.7% of restorative materials and 10.9% of teeth. Secondary caries was found in 29% of the teeth. Based on binary lo-gistic regression, MOD restorations had significantly higher rate of marginal fracture and recurrent caries (P<0.05). Teeth with one or four built-up cusps were significantly more resistant to fracture compared to other groups. Patients, who regularly used dental floss had significantly lower rate of secondary caries and restoration fracture (P=0.032).
Conclusion: The average longevity of amalgam build-up restorations was 8.45 years, which is comparable to minimum longevity of casting restorations. Thus, amalgam restorations seem to be an acceptable conservative method for restoration of endodontically treated teeth.
Keywords: Longevity, Dental Amalgam, Dental Restoration, Permanent
Full-Text [PDF 381 kb]   (152 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Orginal | Subject: Restorative Dentistry
References
1. Spielman H, Schaffer SB, Cohen MG, Wu H, Vena DA, Collie D, et al. Restorative outcomes for endodontically treated teeth in the Practi-tioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learn-ing Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012 Jul;143(7):746-55. [DOI] [PubMed]
2. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars with-out crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Feb;93(2):164-70. [DOI] [PubMed]
3. Ratnakar P, Bhosgi R, Metta KK, Aggarwal K, Vinuta S, Singh N. Survey on restoration of endodontically treated anterior teeth: A questionnaire based study. J Int Oral Health. 2014 Nov-Dec;6(6):41-5. [PubMed]
4. Williams C, Kumar M, Bajpai M, Agarwal D. Prosthodontic management of endodontically treated teeth: A literature review. Int J Clin Prev Dent. 2014;10(1):45-50.
5. McCracken MS, Gordan VV, Litaker MS, Funkhouser E, Fellows JL, Shamp DG, et al. A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Net-work. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Jun;144(6):583-93.
6. Kim KL, Namgung C, Cho BH. The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations. Restor Dent Endod. 2013 Feb; 38(1):11-20. [PubMed]
7. Gordan VV, Riley JL 3rd, Blaser PK, Mondragon E, Garvan CW, Mjör IA. Alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations: results of a seven-year clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011 Jul;142(7):842-9. [PubMed]
8. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007 Jan;23(1):2-8.
9. Soares AC, Cavalheiro A. A review of amalgam and composite longevity of posterior restora-tions. Revista Port de Estomat, Med Dent Cirur-gia Maxilofacial. 2010 Jul;51(3):155-64.
10. Opdam N.J.M, Bronkhorst E.M, Loomans B.A.C, Huysmans M-C. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010 July;89(10):1063-7.
11. Shafiei F, Memarpour M, Doozandeh M. Three-year clinical evaluation of cuspal coverage with combined composite-amalgam in endodontically-treated maxillary premolars. Oper Dent. 2010 Nov-Dec;35(6):599-604.
12. Smales R. Longevity of cusp-covered amalgams: Survivals after 15 years. Oper Dent. 1991 Jan-Feb;16(1):17-20.
13. Mackert JR, Wahl MJ. Are there acceptable al-ternatives to amalgam. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2004 Jul;32(7):601-10.
14. Shenoy A. Is it the end of the road for dental amalgam? A critical review. J Conserv Dent. 2008 Jul;11(3):99-107.
15. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjör IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restora-tions at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent. 2001 Jul;29(5):317-24.
16. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical tri-al. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 June;138(6):775-83.
17. Forss H, Widström E. From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand. 2001 Apr;59(2):57-62.
18. Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jun;138(6):763-72.
19. Smales RJ, Hawthorne WS. Long-term survival of repaired amalgams, recemented crowns and gold castings. Oper Dent. 2004 May-Jun; 29 (3):249-53.
20. Roberts HW, Charlton DG, Murchison DF. Re-pair of non-carious amalgam margin defects. Oper Dent. 2001 May-Jun;26(3):273-6.
21. Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent. 2003 Aug; 31(6):395-405.
22. Stavropoulou AF, Koidis PT. A systematic review of single crowns on endodontically treated teeth. J Dent. 2007 Oct;35(10):761-7.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA code



XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Kermanshah H, Ghabraei S, Kharrazifard M J, Monjazeb M, Farahmandpour N. Longevity of Amalgam Build-Up Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth . J Islam Dent Assoc Iran. 2018; 30 (4) :132-138
URL: http://jidai.ir/article-1-1989-en.html


Volume 30, Issue 4 (10-2018) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Islamic Dental Association of Iran

AWT IMAGE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.08 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3897