Abstract
Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of 2-year old gallium alloy restorations. Parameters evaluated include: (1) fracture at the margins, (2) tarnish, (3) surface roughness, (4) tooth fracture, (5) fracture through the body of the restoration, and (6) any medical or dental conditions arising during the study. Materials and Methods: Nine patients received 30 Class I restorations of Galloy gallium alloy. These were placed as conservatively as possible under a rubber dam. Fifteen of the preparations were lined with a Bis-GMA resin to seal the restoration from moisture. The other 15 preparations were sealed with Amalgambond. After placement of the gallium alloy, the exposed surfaces of all restorations were sealed with the Bis-GMA resin, and the occlusion was checked. The restorations were examined at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Results: At the 2-year recall, all restorations were intact with the exception of one tooth fracture (cause unknown). Forty-five percent of the restorations exhibited tarnish and 60% had a rough surface. The fracture at the margins of these restorations was minimal, and no significant difference could be found between those using Amalgambond and those sealed with the resin system. No medical problems were reported by the patients, and postoperative sensitivity was minimal.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 191-194 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | American Journal of Dentistry |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| State | Published - 1996 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Dentistry(all)
Cite this
2-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy. / Osborne, John W.; Summitt, James B.
In: American Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 9, No. 5, 1996, p. 191-194.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - 2-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy
AU - Osborne, John W.
AU - Summitt, James B
PY - 1996
Y1 - 1996
N2 - Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of 2-year old gallium alloy restorations. Parameters evaluated include: (1) fracture at the margins, (2) tarnish, (3) surface roughness, (4) tooth fracture, (5) fracture through the body of the restoration, and (6) any medical or dental conditions arising during the study. Materials and Methods: Nine patients received 30 Class I restorations of Galloy gallium alloy. These were placed as conservatively as possible under a rubber dam. Fifteen of the preparations were lined with a Bis-GMA resin to seal the restoration from moisture. The other 15 preparations were sealed with Amalgambond. After placement of the gallium alloy, the exposed surfaces of all restorations were sealed with the Bis-GMA resin, and the occlusion was checked. The restorations were examined at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Results: At the 2-year recall, all restorations were intact with the exception of one tooth fracture (cause unknown). Forty-five percent of the restorations exhibited tarnish and 60% had a rough surface. The fracture at the margins of these restorations was minimal, and no significant difference could be found between those using Amalgambond and those sealed with the resin system. No medical problems were reported by the patients, and postoperative sensitivity was minimal.
AB - Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of 2-year old gallium alloy restorations. Parameters evaluated include: (1) fracture at the margins, (2) tarnish, (3) surface roughness, (4) tooth fracture, (5) fracture through the body of the restoration, and (6) any medical or dental conditions arising during the study. Materials and Methods: Nine patients received 30 Class I restorations of Galloy gallium alloy. These were placed as conservatively as possible under a rubber dam. Fifteen of the preparations were lined with a Bis-GMA resin to seal the restoration from moisture. The other 15 preparations were sealed with Amalgambond. After placement of the gallium alloy, the exposed surfaces of all restorations were sealed with the Bis-GMA resin, and the occlusion was checked. The restorations were examined at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Results: At the 2-year recall, all restorations were intact with the exception of one tooth fracture (cause unknown). Forty-five percent of the restorations exhibited tarnish and 60% had a rough surface. The fracture at the margins of these restorations was minimal, and no significant difference could be found between those using Amalgambond and those sealed with the resin system. No medical problems were reported by the patients, and postoperative sensitivity was minimal.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030251829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030251829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 9545902
AN - SCOPUS:0030251829
VL - 9
SP - 191
EP - 194
JO - American Journal of Dentistry
JF - American Journal of Dentistry
SN - 0894-8275
IS - 5
ER -