PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “DENTAL AMALGAM”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 595 records · Page 33Linked to original sources
PubMed1991

Bonding dental amalgam to a light-curing glass-ionomer liner/base.

At a time when amalgam is used widely, yet when the criteria for its use are still evolving, the incorporation of an element of adhesive bonding between the amalgam and the base material may come into greater prominence and aid the general move towards more conservative new or replacement cavity preparations. This study assessed the 24-hour tensile bond strength of amalgam (Dispersalloy) to a light-curing glass-ionomer liner/base (Vitrabond), using Scotchbond dual cure, uncured Vitrabond or Vitrabond liquid as intermediaries. Using the Weibull distribution function, it was found that uncured Vitrabond was a better intermediary than Scotchbond or Vitrabond liquid. The bond strengths obtained with uncured Vitrabond intermediary were of the same order as those which can be expected between a glass-ionomer cement and dentine. This suggests scope for developing techniques for bonding amalgam to parts of cavity preparations.

Dental Alloys↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Dental amalgam].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Biocompatible Materials↗
PubMed2004

Estimating the weight of dental amalgam restorations.

AIM: Data on the weights of amalgam restorations are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine these weights and to develop criteria to facilitate their estimation. METHODS: Four separate regression models with 4 covariates in various combinations were used to estimate the weight of amalgam restorations. Model I, based on 514 restorations from both natural and anatomical replica teeth, contained 3 covariates: the number of restored surfaces (covariate A), the type of tooth (covariate B) and whether the restoration had been removed from a natural tooth or an anatomical replica tooth (covariate C). Model II, based on 359 restorations from anatomical replicas, contained 2 covariates: A and B. Model III, based on 155 restorations from natural teeth, contained 3 covariates: covariates A and B and whether the natural teeth had been extracted in 2002 or at least 15 years previously (covariate D). In model IV, covariate D was removed from model III. RESULTS: Model I explained 72% of the variation in the weight of restorations; the partial R2 for covariates A, B and C in model I was 0.5818, 0.797 and 0.0579, respectively (p < 0.001). In model III, the weights of the restorations did not depend on covariate D (p = 0.93). The least square mean weight of amalgam restorations with 1, 2, 3, and 4 or more surfaces restored (and 95% confidence interval) was 0.31 g (0.28-0.34 g), 0.49 g (0.45-0.53 g), 0.81 g (0.76-0.86 g) and 1.38 g (1.31-1.45 g), respectively. CONCLUSION: The number of surfaces restored (covariate A) accounted for at least 80% of the variation in the weight of restorations in all models and therefore provides the best estimate for the weight of amalgam restorations.

Analysis of Variance↗