cons reference Flashcards
Addition to amalgam to amalgam not reliable
Shen et al., 2006)
Amalgam, non-aesthetic
(Ozcan et al, 2011)
RC transmits lesser load to the underlying tooth structure
thus less stress to premolar.
Torabzadeh et al., 2013
Amalgam preps are more extensive, requiring larger undercuts for mechanical retention further weakening tooth
Ozcan et al, 2011
Amalgam preps must incorporate mechanical features to retain the restorative material. Parallel walls, box forms, undercuts, slots, and retentive grooves provide adequate retention but often require the removal of “healthy” tooth structure
Vaught 2007
-Posteriorly, harder to achieve excellent moisture control for RC, as RC is more moisture intolerant compared to amalgam. At the same time, some practitioners may find interproximal contact points with RC in posterior regions more difficult to recreate
(Lubisich et al., 2011).
Resin restorations that are placed in areas of high function are more prone to exhibit excessive wear and/or marginal fracture
Bohaty et al., 2013
Moderate to large posterior composite restorations have higher failure rates, more recurrent caries and increased frequency of replacement compared to amalgam
Bohaty et al., 2013)
There is very high frequency of cusp fracture of amalgam-restored premolars. These fractures, more often subgingival, may result in permanent injury to the periodontal tissue
(Hansen, 1988)
Resin restorations that are placed in areas of high function are more prone to exhibit excessive wear and/or marginal fracture
Bohaty et al., 2013
Amalgam is known to have longer longevity (~10yrs)
(Rho et al, 2013 and Mjor et al, 2000).
In addition, cuspal reduction leads to reduction in retention thus requiring additional slots, grooves and possibly pin placement, risking pulpal exposure, sacrificing healthy tooth structure
Vaught 2007
Sealing of amalgam interface by corrosion products
(Ben-Amar et al. 1995)
The more posterior a tooth, the greater the masticatory forces, the more rapid the wear of the restoration
(Murchison et al., 2006)
Preparation tends to have narrower outline form, allowing less occlusal contact on the restoration and reduces wear
Murchison et al., 2006)
Resin wears more easily compared to amalgam thus if it was molar to molar occlusion, amalgam would be prefered
Murchison et al., 2006)
Higher failure rates in high caries risk patients for RC compared to amalagam
(Opdam et al, 2010)
Anatomical cuspal reduction show better resistance to fracture compared to horizontal or beveled reduction → more conservative compared to the conventional horizontal cuspal reduction method for amalgam.
(Serin Kalay et al, 2016)
-Moisture control can be sufficiently achieved thus adhesive systems (via prime, bonding) can be effectively achieved
(Summit et al 2006).
-In addition, polymerisation shrinkage can lead to pulling away of resin, gap formation, cuspal deformation, enamel cracks and grazes, decrease fracture resistance of cusps, secondary caries formation with bacterial ingress into dentinal tubules
(Murchison et al 2006).
The clinical relevance of this is that amalgam bonded into conservative MOD preparations of premolars does not offer increased strength to the tooth and restoration but only unnecessarily increases the complexity of the clinical procedure.
(Marchan et al., 2009)
