cons reference

Question 1

Addition to amalgam to amalgam not reliable

Answer 1

Shen et al., 2006)

Question 2

Amalgam, non-aesthetic

Answer 2

(Ozcan et al, 2011)

Question 3

RC transmits lesser load to the underlying tooth structure

thus less stress to premolar.

Answer 3

Torabzadeh et al., 2013

Question 4

Amalgam preps are more extensive, requiring larger undercuts for mechanical retention further weakening tooth

Answer 4

Ozcan et al, 2011

Question 5

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

Answer 5

Vaught 2007

Question 6

-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

Answer 6

(Lubisich et al., 2011).

Question 7

Resin restorations that are placed in areas of high function are more prone to exhibit excessive wear and/or marginal fracture

Answer 7

Bohaty et al., 2013

Question 8

Moderate to large posterior composite restorations have higher failure rates, more recurrent caries and increased frequency of replacement compared to amalgam

Answer 8

Bohaty et al., 2013)

Question 9

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

Answer 9

(Hansen, 1988)

Question 10

Resin restorations that are placed in areas of high function are more prone to exhibit excessive wear and/or marginal fracture

Answer 10

Bohaty et al., 2013

Question 11

Amalgam is known to have longer longevity (~10yrs)

Answer 11

(Rho et al, 2013 and Mjor et al, 2000).

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Vaught 2007

Question 13

Sealing of amalgam interface by corrosion products

Answer 13

(Ben-Amar et al. 1995)

Question 14

The more posterior a tooth, the greater the masticatory forces, the more rapid the wear of the restoration

Answer 14

(Murchison et al., 2006)

Question 15

Preparation tends to have narrower outline form, allowing less occlusal contact on the restoration and reduces wear

Answer 15

Murchison et al., 2006)

Question 16

Resin wears more easily compared to amalgam thus if it was molar to molar occlusion, amalgam would be prefered

Answer 16

Murchison et al., 2006)

Question 17

Higher failure rates in high caries risk patients for RC compared to amalagam

Answer 17

(Opdam et al, 2010)

Question 18

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.

Answer 18

(Serin Kalay et al, 2016)

Question 19

-Moisture control can be sufficiently achieved thus adhesive systems (via prime, bonding) can be effectively achieved

Answer 19

(Summit et al 2006).

Question 20

-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

Answer 20

(Murchison et al 2006).

Question 21

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.

Answer 21

(Marchan et al., 2009)