Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature

  • Published:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim: To review the available literature on the durability of amalgam when used to restore interproximal (class II) cavities in primary molars. Methods: The literature was searched using OVID Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to 2006. The search plan of the electronic databases included: “dental amalgam or amalgam or alloy” and “deciduous or primary or milk or first or baby or natal” or “tooth or teeth or dentition” and “permanent restorations or permanent fillings”. Relevant prospective clinical studies were reviewed by 2 reviewers against a set of defined criteria. Papers were graded according to the number of criteria met as A = >90%, B1 = 75%, B2 = 50% and C = <50%. Results:: No study achieved a Grade A; four studies rated Grade B1 and thirteen B2. Seven studies were rated Grade C. A wide range of failure rates for amalgam were reported from 0–58%. However, in the context of a controlled clinical environment in a developed country the failure rate varied between 0 and 22%. Conclusion: Amalgam remains an appropriate choice of material for the restoration of the primary dentition. However, factors other than durability are increasingly influencing its use in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAPD. Guideline on pediatric restoration dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2005–6; Reference Manual: 122–129.

  • Barr-Agholme M, Oden A, Dahllof G, Modeer T. A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars. Dent Mater. 1991;7: 230–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braff MH. A comparison between stainless steel crowns and multisurface amalgams in primary molars. J Dent Child. 1975;42: 474–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick BL, Evans DJR Restoration of class II cavities in primary teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: An evidence based assessment of the literature. Eur Arch Paed Dent. 2007; 1:13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu CH, King NM, Lee AM, Yiu CK, Wei SH. A pilot study of the marginal adaptation and surface morphology of glass-cermet cements. Quintessence Int. 1996;27: 493–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Curzon ME, Toumba KJ. Restoration of primary teeth: clinical criteria for assessment of the literature. Eur Arch Paed Dent. 2006;7: 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criterion for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971;USPHS Publication No 790-244.

  • Dawson LR, Simon JR Jr., Taylor PP. Use of amalgam and stainless steel restorations for primary molars. J Dent Child. 1981;48: 420–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130: 1459–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24-month evaluation. Br Dent J. 2002;193: 339–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frencken JE, Makoni F. Sithole WD. Atraumatic restorative treatment and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe: evaluation after 1 year. Caries Res. 1996;30: 428–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22: 479–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon M, Gorfil C, Segal S, Mass E. Treatment policies among Israeli specialists in paediatric dentistry. Europ J Paediatr Dent. 2005;6: 73–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickel R, Voss A. A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgam restorations in primary molars. J Dent Child. 1990;57: 184–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland IS, Walls AW, Wallwork MA, Murray JJ. The longevity of amalgam restorations in deciduous molars. Br Dent J. 1986;161: 255–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al-Jame G. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003;13: 172–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kavvadia K, Kakaboura A, Vanderas AP, Papagiannoulis L. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Pediatr Dent. 2004;26: 245–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsanos N, Dionysopoulos P. Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars: a clinical prospective study. Europ J Paediatr Dent. 2004;5: 136–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levering NJ, Messer LB. The durability of primary molar restorations: I. Observations and predictions of success of amalgams. Pediatr Dent. 1988; 10: 74–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Llewelyn DR. A pilot study of 230 restorations in children’s mouths. Proc Br Paedod Soc. 1977;7: 19–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marks LA, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ, Martens LC. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation. Caries Res. 1999;33: 387–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mass E, Gordon M, Fuks AB. Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children. J Dent Child. 1999;66: 93–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milsom KM, Tickle M, Blinkhorn A. The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the northwest region of England to restore the primary dentition. J Dent. 2002;30: 77–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell L, Walls AWG. Life survival analysis. Dent Update. 1991;18:125–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris ME, Barkin PR, Soelberg KB, Weis RW. Complex primary molar restorations using a composite resins. (A 42-month study using amalgam as comparative material). J Calif Dent Assoc. 1979;7: 39–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson GV, Osborne JW, Gale EN, Norman RD, Phillips RW. A three-year clinical evaluation of composite resin and a high copper amalgam in posterior primary teeth. J Dent Child. 1980;47: 414–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHMRC (1999) Dental amalgam and mercury in dentistry. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldenburg TR, Vann WF, Jr., Dilley DC. Comparison of composite and amalgam in posterior teeth of children. Dent Mater. 1987;3: 182–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars—a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J. 1992;16: 81–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Papathanasiou AG, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 1994;16: 282–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peretz B, Ram D. Restorative material for children’s teeth: preferences of parents and children. J Dent Child. 2002;69: 243–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersson LG, Rasmusson CG, Hagborg S, Isacsson P. Fluoride supplemented and non gamma 2 amalgam. A comparative clinical study into the primary and permanent dentition in children. Swed Dent J. 1985;9: 49–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P. Design and analysis of randomised clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer. 1977;35: 1–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qvist V, Thylstrup A, Mjor IA. Restorative treatment pattern and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986;44: 343–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. J Dent Res. 1997;76: 1387–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004;62: 37–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts JF, Sherriff M. The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown molar restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice.[erratum appears in Br Dent J. 1990 Nov 10;169(9): 285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts MW, Broring CL, Moffa JP. Two-year clinical evaluation of a proprietary composite resin for the restoration of primary posterior teeth. Pediatr Dent. 1985;7: 14–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roshan D, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. Changes in dentists’ attitudes and practice in paediatric dentistry. Europ J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4: 21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugg-Gunn AJ, Welbury RR, Toumba J, British Society of Paediatric D. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: a policy document on the use of amalgam in paediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2001;11: 233–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res. 2002;36: 437–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tonn EM, Ryge G, Chambers DW. A two-year clinical study of a carvable composite resin used as class II restorations in primary molars. J Dent Child. 1980;47: 405–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran LA, Messer LB. Clinicians’ choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J. 2003;48: 221–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements in the deciduous dentition. Br Dent J. 1988;165: 13–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J. 1991;170: 177–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dentistry, Royal Children’s Hospital and Oral Health Research Unit, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Flemington Road, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, 3052, Australia

    N. M. Kilpatrick & A. Neumann

Authors
  1. N. M. Kilpatrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. M. Kilpatrick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kilpatrick, N.M., Neumann, A. Durability of amalgam in the restoration of class II cavities in primary molars: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 8, 5–13 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262564

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262564

Key words

Search

Navigation