We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 32 (2001), No. 5     1. May 2001
Quintessence Int 32 (2001), No. 5  (01.05.2001)

Page 391-395

Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations
Duncalf, William V. / Wilson, Nairn H. F.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast the performance, in terms of marginal adaptation, of a non-gamma-2 amalgam alloy with a compact-filled light-cured composite in the restoration of Class II preparations of conservative design. Method and materials: Fifty recently extracted teeth were selected for the study. The teeth were restored with either a non-gamma-2 amalgam alloy, Dispersalloy, or a compact-filled resin composite, Z100, using standard techniques. The marginal adaptation of the restorative materials to the proximal surface outline form of each preparation was assessed at magnification 330. Results: Highly significant differences were demonstrated in the mean percentages of perfect margins in all 3 segments of the proximal boxes of the restorations with the resin composite performing significantly better than the amalgam. The percentages of marginal fissuring were significantly higher in the amalgam restorations, except at the cervical margin, where the incidence of fissuring was almost the same for the amalgam and resin composite restorations. The resin composite restorations had significantly fewer underfilled margins than the amalgam restorations. Conclusion: In the conservative Class II preparations, the amalgam restorations were of poor quality with respect to marginal adaptation, compared with the resin composite restorations. It is suggested that the use of amalgam as a control in a clinical evaluation of resin composite restorations in conservative preparations cannot be justified, because it is apparently not possible to compare restorations of equivalent initial quality.