Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 8;3(3):CD007517.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007517.pub3.

Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Anirudha Agnihotry  1 , Zbys Fedorowicz, Mona Nasser
Affiliations

Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Anirudha Agnihotry et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries. Caries adversely affects and progressively destroys the tissues of the tooth, including the dental pulp (nerve), leaving teeth unsightly, weakened and with impaired function. The treatment of lesions of dental caries, which are progressing through dentine and have caused the formation of a cavity, involves the provision of dental restorations (fillings). This review updates the previous version published in 2009.

Objectives: To assess the effects of adhesive bonding on the in-service performance and longevity of dental amalgam restorations.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2016). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) (both to 21 January 2016) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing adhesively bonded versus traditional non-bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention, in adults with permanent molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II amalgam restorations only.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed the risk of bias in the included study.

Main results: One trial with 31 patients who received 113 restorations was included. At two years, 50 out of 53 restorations in the non-bonded group survived, and 55 of 60 bonded restorations survived with five unaccounted for at follow-up. Post-insertion sensitivity was not significantly different (P > 0.05) at baseline or two-year follow-up. No fractures of tooth tissue were reported and there was no significant difference between the groups or matched pairs of restorations in their marginal adaptation (P > 0.05).

Authors' conclusions: There is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a two-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no financial conflicts of interest and the review authors declare that they do not have any associations with any parties who may have vested interests in the results of this review.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Comment in

References

References to studies included in this review

Setcos 1999 {published data only}
    1. Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. A two‐year randomized, controlled clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 1999;1(4):323‐31. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Browning 2000 {published data only}
    1. Browning WD, Johnson WW, Gregory PN. Clinical performance of bonded amalgam restorations at 42 months. Journal of the American Dental Association 2000;131(5):607‐11. - PubMed
Mach 2002 {published data only}
    1. Mach Z, Regent J, Staninec M, Mrklas L, Setcos JC. The integrity of bonded amalgam restorations: a clinical evaluation after five years. Journal of the American Dental Association 2002;133(4):460‐7. - PubMed
Mahler 1996 {published data only}
    1. Mahler DB, Engle JH, Simms LE, Terkla LG. One‐year clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. Journal of the American Dental Association 1996;127(3):345‐9. - PubMed
McEvoy 1992 {published data only}
    1. McEvoy SA, Richards ND, McConnell TA, Mitchell RJ. Lesion size and retention of dentin‐bonded restorations. Journal of Dental Research. 1992; Vol. 71:139 (Abs No 266).
McEvoy 1993 {published data only}
    1. McEvoy SA, Richards ND, McConnell TA, Mitchell RJ. Age, lesion size and retention of dentin‐bonded restorations. Journal of Dental Research. 1993; Vol. 72:380 (Abs No 2216).
Xia 2002 {published data only}
    1. Xia SL, Liu JB, Li TL. Clinical study of amalgam restoration with resin multi‐purpose adhesive agent. Bulletin of Hunan Medical University 2002;27(3):238. - PubMed

Additional references

Ben‐Amar 1995
    1. Ben‐Amar A, Cardash HS, Judes H. The sealing of the tooth/amalgam interface by corrosion products. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1995;22(2):101‐4. - PubMed
Berry 1998
    1. Berry TG, Summitt JB, Chung AK, Osborne JW. Amalgam at the new millennium. Journal of the American Dental Association 1998;129(11):1547‐56. - PubMed
Burke 2001
    1. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjor IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. Journal of Dentistry 2001;29(5):317‐24. - PubMed
Chadwick 2001
    1. Chadwick BL, Dummer PMH, Dunstan F, Gilmour A, Jones R, et al. A systematic review of the longevity of dental restorations. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York 2001; Vol. Report number 19.
Downer 1999
    1. Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ. How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review. British Dental Journal 1999;187(8):432‐9. - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey‐Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Hickel 2007
    1. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clinical Oral Investigations 2007;11(1):5‐33. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Mackert 2004
    1. Mackert JR, Wahl MJ. Are there acceptable alternatives to amalgam?. Journal of the California Dental Association 2004;32(7):601‐10. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ryge 1981
    1. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. International Dental Journal 1981;30(4):347‐58. - PubMed
SCENIHR 2007
    1. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). The safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration materials for patients and users. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/scenihr_cons_07... [Accessed 28 March 2008].
Setcos 2000
    1. Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Operative Dentistry 2000;25(2):121‐9. - PubMed
Turner 1995
    1. Turner EW, Germain HA, Meiers JC. Microleakage of dentin‐amalgam bonding agents. American Journal of Dentistry 1995;8(4):191‐6. - PubMed
WHO 2005
    1. Sheiham A. Oral health, general health and quality of life. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2005; Vol. 83, issue 9:644. - PMC - PubMed
Yee 2002
    1. Yee R, Sheiham A. The burden of restorative dental treatment for children in Third World countries. International Dental Journal 2002;52(1):1‐9. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Fedorowicz 2009
    1. Fedorowicz Z, Nasser M, Wilson N. Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007517.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Fedorowicz 2009a
    1. Fedorowicz Z, Nasser M, Wilson N. Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007517] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types