PLEASE READ: The following is a compilation of several research databases.
To make it easier to reference, we’ve organized the articles according to the general category of the research (“Microleakage”, “Cusp Reinforcement”, “Amalgam-to-tooth structure bond”, etc.), but beyond that, the order of
listing has no significance. The bibliography includes some duplicates. Occasionally papers are listed under multiple categories. No doubt there are also a few redundancies that weren’t caught when the databases were combined.
This bibliography doesn’t even begin to list all published research into the Amalgambond 4-META/MMA-TBB system; however, the papers below are a representative sample of published articles. We’ve made no effort to select
only those that are complimentary to Amalgambond. Some of them report contradictory findings. In a few, Amalgambond did not particularly shine.
Occasionally you notice patterns when you review a number of papers that aren’t evident in any particular paper. For example, when it comes to amalgam-to-dentin bond strength AMALGAMBOND RULES. Nothing consistently
comes close. Also in every comparative study we know of, Amalgambond has shown superior postoperative desensitization. Though some studies have found that Amalgambond provides better protection against leakage than other bonding agents, the really important finding is that under amalgam, bonding agents (all bonding agents!) are
more effective than varnish. (This brings up an interesting question. Sensitivity is often said to correlate with leakage. Yet if all bonding agents are good at preventing leakage, why do clinical studies consistently demonstrate
that Amalgambond is better at preventing sensitivity?)
There is no way in the world we can abstract a research article in just one or two sentences. Furthermore, our comments concern only the Amalgambond portion of the paper, and even more specifically, Parkell’s interpretation
of the Amalgambond portion of the paper.
If something looks interesting, we strongly urge you to refer to the original article.
2 Enjoy this article? Visit our article archive to download other free technique articles.
Use Of Amalgambond To Bond Amalgam To Tooth Structure“... In a study carried out at the Univer-sity of Manitoba involving 40 premolar and molar teeth with fractured buccal or lingual cusps in association with preexis-tent silver amalgam restorations repaired with new amalgam using Amalgambond adhesive, no failures were observed over a 1-year recall period.”
Neither Amalgambond Plus nor AllBond2 show evidence of deterioration with time.
– Hasegawa T, Retief DH. Shear bond strength of 2 commercially available dentin-amalgam bonding systems. J Dent Res. 73: Spec, Abstr #957, p221 Mar 94
HPA powder dramatically improves bond. Composite bond relatively unaffected by wet/dry surface or multiple coats. Wet was slightly stronger than dry. Moist/dry does not significantly affect amalgam-to-dentin bond.
– Barkmeier W, et al. Laboratory evaluation of Amalgambond and Amalgam-bond Plus. Amer Jour Dent. 7:5, p239-242, Oct 94
Amalgambond improves bond of fresh amalgam or composite to old amalgam. All surfaces blasted.
TENSILE STRENGTH (MPa)
FLEXURAL STRENGTH (MPa)
– Can Dorter: PHD Thesis - University of Istanbul - 1995
Does blasting the prep with alumina at 42psi before bonding affect Amalgambond’s adhesion? Makes no difference when bonding to dentin, but may actually reduce the enamel bond
– Nikaido T, et al. Bond strengths of a bonding agent to enamel and dentin treated with low pressure air abrasion. Oper Dent. 21:5, p218-224, Sept-Oct 96
Amalgambond Plus equal to 4 reg TMS pins. No degradation in water. Loaded in compression at 45 degrees. No difference in Amalgambond’s strength between sample stored in water 3months and 6 months. “Water storage did not have a significant effect.”
a) Amalgambond - 802 N
b) Amalgambond Plus- 1386 N
c) 4 pins - 1592
d) 6 pins - 1234
e) 4 pins + Amalgambond Plus - 1858
– Amalgambond to bovine teeth (MPaImbery TA, et al. Amalgambond, Amalgambond Plus, and Pins compared in resistance for amalgams. J Dent. Res, Abstr #953, p 221, Mar 94
Amalgambond bonds spherical alloy to dentin & amalgam better than lathe cut. Suggests that the greater the spherical contents, the greater the bond strength.
Composite/Amalgam using Amalgambond Plus 80% Spherical (Artalloy) - 1178.79 30% Spherical (Luxalloy) - 741
Amalgam/Dentin using Amalgambond Plus 80% Spherical (Artalloy) - 1265 30% Spherical (Luxalloy) - 802– Morrill F, et al. Comparison of different
shaped particles of amalgam alloy bonded to composite & dentin with 4-META. J Dent Res, 73: Spec, Abstr #959, p 221, Mar 9 4
Amalgambond Plus showed by far the highest bond of Tytin to dentin no matter whether the material was hand condensed or automatically condensed. Thermo-cy-cled 300 times. “The shear bond strength of Amalgambond Plus was significantly higher than the other materials.”
– Rantananakin T., et al. Effect of condensa-tion technique on amalgam bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res. 74: Special, Abstr 742, p104 Mar 95
Amalgambond and Allbond are both effec-tive amalgam and composite bonding agents.
– Kline J, D Boyer. Comparison of bonding amalgam & composite to enamel and dentin. J Dent Res. 74: Special, Abstr 741, p104, Mar 95
Amalgambond Plus showed higher bond than AllBond and Panavia. Used Disper-salloy & loaded in shear. Then compared with 3 Minikin Pins. “Amalgambond-HPA was significantly stronger than the other adhesives in this study.” 30 days water immersion had no effect on adhesive.
– Lo CS., et al. In vitro shear strength of bonded amalgam with and without pins . J Prosth Dent. 74:4, p385-391, Oct 95
Amalgambond Plus has highest shear bond of Tytin to dentin. “Amalgambond Plus demonstrated better shear bond strengths than the other four bonding agents.”
– Vargas MA, et al. Amalgam shear bond strength to dentin using different bonding agents. Oper Dent. 19:6, p224-227, Nov-Dec 94
Amalgambond Plus shows highest bonds to amalgam. Thermo-cycled 5000 times. CONCLUSION: Use of adhesive increased bonding and reduced micro-leakage of silver amalgam restorations. Amalgambond Plus, Resinomer & Clearfil Liner Bond were statistically best in both bond and seal.” (Sum of data for both Dispersealloy and Tytin)
– Cao CA, et al. Shear strength and microleakage of 23 adhesives for amalgam bonding. J.Dent. Res. 74: Spec, Abstr #1759, p231, Mar 95
Amalgambond out-performs pins. No difference between 4-META and Opti-bond, but both are statistically superior to All-Bond.
– Tjan AHL, et al. Fracture resistance of bonded amalgam build-up restorations. J. Dent Res. 74: Spec, Abstr #250, p432, June 95
Amalgambond & HPA powder showed highest strength of spherical alloy (Valiant) to formaldehyde-treated den-tin. Stored at 100% relative humidity. Note: The bond strengths seem too high. Though Amalgambond Plus did very well, we question the results of this study.
– Herda E, et al. Strengths of modified amal-gam to dentin interphases. J. Dent Res. 7 4: Spec, Abstr #1110, p539, June 9 5
HPA powder improves bond to amalgam. Higher than All-Bond 2 but statistically the same as All-Bond 2 plus Liner F. No Thermo-cycling or significant aging.
– Bagley A, et al. In vitro comparison of filled and unfilled universal bonding agents of amalgam to dentin. O per Dent. 19:3, p 97-101, May-June 94
Optibond bonds amalgam/dentin better than Amalgambond or AllBond 2.
– Tjan AHL, et al. Shear bond strength of amal-gam to dentin pretreated with Optibond. J Dent Res. 73: Spec, Abstr #958, p221, Mar 94
Found virtually no bond of amalgam to dentin using Amalgambond plus HPA. Very curious. (Suspect the presenter may have accidentally allowed the resin to cure before condensing.)
a) 2 Weeks - 0.30MPa b) 6 Months- 0.74 c) 1 Year - 0.30
– Larsen RB, et al . Long term stability of the dentin amalgam bond with Amalgambond. J Dent Res. 74: Special, Abstr 744, p104, Mar 95
Amalgambond showed higher bond strength than pins or potholes though HPA powder was not used. Bonded amalgams also has the lowest frequency of non-restorable tooth fractures.
– Imbery TA, et al. Retention of complex amalgam using self-threading pins, amalgam pins and Amalgambond. Amer Jour Dent. 8:3, p117-122, June 95
“Amalgambond Plus provided as much resistance as four or six regular TMS pins. The greatest resistance was achieved when pins and Amalgambond were combined. Water storage did not signifi-cantly affect the resistance of restorations retained by Amalgambond or Amalgam-bond Plus.” Used Dispersalloy. Aged for 3 months & 6 months.
4 Enjoy this article? Visit our article archive to download other free technique articles.
– Imbery TA, et al. Comparing the resistance of Dentin Bonding Agents and pins in amalgam restorations. J Amer. Dent. Ass, 126:753-759, June 95
Amalgambond Plus and Tytin provides the retention of 4 Minim pins.
– Burgess JO, et al. Fracture resistance of complex amalgams. J Dent Res. 72: Spec, Abstr #228, p132, Mar 93
“A strong bond existed between amalgam restorations and vital dentin mediated by Amalgambond ... Amalgambond has the dual potential not only to bond amalgam to tooth structure but also to prevent percolation. Possible ideal substitute for Copalite varnish.” (Did not use HPA powder. Used Contour amalgam.) Bonded 10 samples. Thermo-cycled.
– Abraham M, et al. Investigation concerning Amalgambond. Research monograph. College of Dental Surgery - Manipal Academy, Manipal INDIA, June 95.)
Clinical study found Amalgambond equaled pins for retention and significant-ly lowered cold sensitivity. Both Minim pins and Amalgambond showed 100% retention at 6 month recall.
– Burgess JO, et al . In vivo comparison of pin and Amalgambond retained complex amalgam restorations. J Dent Res, 75: Spec, Abstr 1232, p171, Mar 9 6
Amalgambond Plus outperformed Scotchbond MP Plus, Advance, and Duet. Thermo-cycled 500 times. No significant difference between the top 3 adhesives.
– Hollis RA, et al. Shear strength & Microle-akge of 14 amalgam bonding adhesives. J our Dent Res. Abstr #2958, p387, Mar 96
Amalgambond Plus shows 33% higher shear bond strength than Prime&Bond 2.1 though the difference wasn’t statisti-cally significant. Use Lojic amalgam. Amalgambond leaked more than the other agents but the leakage occurred between amalgam and resin.
– Grobler, et al. Shear bond strength, micro-leakage and confocal studies of 4 amalgam alloy bonding agents. Quint Int. 31:7, p501-508, Jly-Aug 00
Bonded amalgams improve buccal cusp strength of teeth with MOD 1/3rd width by 39% to 61%.
– Pilo R, et al. Cusp reinforcement by bonding of amalgam restorations. J Dent. 26:5-6, p467-72, Jul-Aug 98
Amalgams bonded with Amalgambond Plus increase strength of pulpotomized primary molars by 26%
– el-KAlla IH et al. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 66:4, p238-42, Jul-Aug 99
Amalgambond Plus will bond amalgam to a resin-modified glass ionomer liner. Though Parkell argues that liners are not necessary when using Amalgambond, if the dentist chooses to use one, Amal-gambond will create a bond between the amalgam and the RMGI liner. Used an admixed alloy and Fuji II LC.
– Belcher MA, Kunsemiller Bonding amalgam to a resin-modified glass-ionomer.Amer Jour Dent. 12:2, p305-308, Dec 99
Use of Amalgambond vs pins to restore cracked teeth. (This study has been re-viewed several times in JDR). At 3-month and 1yr recall, the teeth restored with Amalgambond & amalgam showed sig-nificantly reduced cold sensitivity. Teeth restored with pins plus Prime&Bond did not show a reduction in cold sensitivity. “The results of this investigation suggest that bonded complex amalgam restora-tions may be preferred over mechanically retained complex amalgam restorations for molars with incomplete fractures.”
– Davis R, Overton JD. Efficacy of bonded and nonbonded amalgam in the treatment of teeth with incomplete fractures. J o ur Amer Dent Ass, 131:469-478, Apr 200 0
Clinical article describing the amalgam “crown” bonded with Amalgambond Plus. Dentists in the US Army discuss the ben-efits of the amalgam “crown” in posterior cases where expense is a concern.
– Udrys GR, Meyer RD: Single appointment amalgam crown procedure for posterior teeth. Gen Dent. 47:4, p408-412, July 99
1-year review of clinical study compar-ing Amalgambond to pins. “To date no restorations have failed, the Amalgam-bond Plus retained restorations are sig-nificantly less sensitive than the Copalite lined and pin-retained Tytin restorations ... From our data it would seem as though Amalgambond Plus does decrease thermal sensitivity after restorations are placed.”
– Burgess JO, et al. The bonded and pin-retained complex amalgam restoration - an in vivo examination. Jour Dent Res. To be published.
In clinical study of amalgams retained by Amalgambond and pins, all restora-tions were retained at first recall. “Cold response was significantly lower with the Amalgambond- retained amalgams com-pared to the pin retained restorations.”
– Burgess JO, et al. In vivo comparison of pin and Amalgambond retained complex amalgam restorations. Jour Dent Res. Spec: 75 Abstr #1232, p171, Mar 96
5- year report of clinical study of 60 complex Tytin restorations. 30 restored with Amalgambond Plus. 30 restored with up to 4 minim pins. No statistical differ-ence between Amalgambond and pins, but bonded amalgams showed less discolor-ation and better marginal adaptation. 2 pinned teeth required endo (0 bonded). 3 pinned teeth fractured (vs 1 bonded.)
– ?? Summit J, et al. 5-yr evaluation of Amal-gambond Plus and pin-retained amalgam restorations. Submitted to JDR -2001
– Kline J & Boyer D. Bond strength of amalgam to dentin with filled adhesives. J Dent Res. 75: Spec, Abstr #1263, 175, Mar 96
Amalgambond Plus has highest bond and least technique sensitivity of the adhe-sives studied. Stronger than AllBond+ Resinomer, and Multipurpose Plus.
– AbdelKereim U, et al. Effect of manipulative variables of 3 adhesives. J Dent Res. 75: Spec, Abstr #36, p22, Mar 96
Effect of Amalgambond w/o powder on retention of class 2 amalgams. Though the restorations with Amalgambond all had higher mean resistance to dislodgement or fracture the difference was not statistically sig. NOTE: NO HPA.
Della Bona A, et al. Effect of amalgam bonding on resistance of class 2 amalgam. J Dent Res. 75: Spec, Abstr #1238, p172, Mar 96
Amalgambond Plus shows higher amal-gam/dentin bond than All-Bond. Com-pared bond when restorative was placed immediately (according to directions) with bond when placed after 90 seconds. Concluded that HPA powder made a sig-nificant improvement in Amalgambond’s strength. The affect of delayed amalgam placement was inconclusive.
Erikson SD, et al. Effects of amalgam place-ment time and adhesive viscosity on SBS. J Dent Res. 75: Spec, Abstr #1261, p175, Mar 96
Amalgambond showed highest bond to set amalgam. Wanted to find a way to bond ortho brackets to an amalgam restoration. Under all prep conditions AB showed highest bond but the best was when the
amalgam was micro-etched. (The im-portance of blasting set amalgam prior to bonding was confirmed by research published on Creighton University web site.)
– Parkhurst S, et al. Bracket-bonding to amalgams for adult orthodontics using new bonding systems. J Dent Res. 7 5: Spec, Abstr #1255, p174, Mar 9 6
Amalgambond Plus shows highest dentin- to-amalgam bond. Duet showed the lowest. Unfortunately the author provided data only for the highest and lowest.
– Cobb DS, et al. Amalgam to dentin shear bond strength using 5 adhesive systems. J Dent Res. 75: Spec, Abstr #1265, p176, Mar 96
Amalgambond Plus shows higher amal-gam/dentin SBS than All-Bond, Panavia, Panavia w Photobond, Copalite. “Amal-gambond with HPA without pins was the most retentive resin (8.65MPA)” 3 Minikin pins showed 18.45MPa. “Shear strength of resin bonded amalgams was not affected by prolonged immersion of 12 and 36 months (in saline).”
– Lo CS, et al. Effects of prolonged immersion on shear strength of resin bonded amalgams. J Dent Res. 7 5:Spec, Abstr #1272, p176, Mar 96
% Of Restored Teeth Less Or Equally Sensitive To Non-Restored.
6 Enjoy this article? Visit our article archive to download other free technique articles.
Amalgambond Plus formed strongest bonds whether Tytin amalgam was manually or mechanically condensed. “In conclusion, for both condensation techniques Amalgambond Plus with HPA powder performed the best in bonding amalgam to dentin.”
– Ratananakin T, et al. Effect of condensation techniques on amalgam bond strength to dentin. O p er Dent, 21:5, p191-195, Sept-Oct 96
– Perdigio J. Research monograph . Instituto Superio Ciencias da Saude, Quintas da Granja -Portugal, May 96
“At this time, bonding amalgam is growing in developed countries, but all amalgam bonding agents are not equal ... Some products achieving highest bonds in past and recent CRA studies are All-Bond 2 and Resinomer and Amalgambond Plus.”
– Christensen GJ . The bonding evolution in dentistry continues. J our Amer Dent Ass., 127:7, p1114-11115, July 96.
Amalgam cores bonded with Amal-gambond are significantly stronger than when retained by All-bond, post, or left unbonded. When AllBond was combined with a post, it showed the same strength Amalgambond without the post.)
– Donald HL, et al. Influence of dentinal adhe-sives and a prefabricated post on fracture resistance of silver amalgam cores. Jour Pros Dent. 77:1, p17-22, Jan 97
Adding HPA powder doubles the bond strength of Amalgambond Plus. Without powder, bonds broke at resin/adhesive interface. With powder, bonds broke within the adhesive film leaving both sides covered with adhesive.
– Hodges, SA . Is the powder in Amalgambond Plus a Plus? S. Il. U, Clinic Chicago Dental Society Clinic, Feb 1997
Clinical trial of 260 class 2 amalgams tracked 18mths to as long as 4 years. Study included All- Bond-2, Amalgam-bond, Prime&Bond 2, ProBond, D-Liner. “The amalgam bond technique was effec-tive in providing resistance to displace-ment, decreasing post-operative, sensitiv-ity and conserving tooth structure.”
– Dondi Dall’Orologio G, et al. Clinical behav-ior of bonded amalgam restorations over 24 months. J Dent Res, 76:5, Abstr #077, p1104, May 9 7
Bonded amalgams show less leakage & marginal gapping after loading. Studied Amalgambond, Multi-Purpose Plus, and Vitremer. Subjected samples to 7000 oc-clusal loads. Not much difference between adhesives ... but huge difference between bonded and unbonded. 7)
In 3-yr clinical study of pediatric amal-gams, bonding improved the prognosis. In study of 1763 restorations including Optibond, AllBond2+Liner F, Vitremer, Amalgambond Plus, and Allbond 2 + Resinomer, unbonded amalgams showed statistically higher failure rate ... 4.8% versus 1.3%. (Joint research by Loyola Dental School and Bisco.)
“There was a significantly higher number of control (unbonded) amalgams replaced due to isthmus fractures, marginal leakage and recurrent decay than adhe-sive amalgams ... In conclusion the place-ment of adhesive amalgams as restora-tions is recommended for use in pediatric dentistry.”
– Cannon ML et al. A clinical study of adhesive amalgams in pediatric dental practice. Trans 3rd Int Cong on Dent Mtrls, Abstr #B-01, p329, Nov 9 7
Amalgambond Plus highest resistance of all amalgam-bonding systems studied. Greater also than pins. Used Phasealloy - T-cycled. 1 month aging.
– Rosen AT et al. Resistance of bonded complex amalgam restoration with & without pins. J our Dent Res. 77: Spec, Abstr #383, p153 Mar 98
MPA Hand (MPa) Mechanical
All-bond 2 3.5 3.58
Amalgambond 4.47 1.40
Amalgambond Plus 15.13 14.01
OptiBond 8.24 6.76
Amalgambond Plus among 3-way tie for amalgam bond strength.
Prime & Bond with Dyract Cem 14.3 MPa
Amalgambond Plus 12.8
Scotchbond MP Plus 10.8
One-Step + Resinomer 7.6
All-Bond 2 5.2
Fuji Duet 2.9
Optibond FL 2.7
Strength at fracture kg
Amalgambond alone 297.9
AllBond2+Post 290.6
Amalgambond + Post 283.2
AllBond2 264.1
Amalgam alone 247.8
Post alone 215.3
Amalgam-to-Dentin SBS (psi)
Amalgambond (no powder) 717.8
Amalgambond Plus (powder) 1399
(microns) Cervical leakage
dentin gap unloaded
dentin gap loaded
enamel gap unloaded
enamel gap loaded
Amalgam-bond 18 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.6
Unbonded 93.7 3.0 4.5 4.0 3.5
Ausiello P, et al. Marginal Quality of Adhesive Class II amalgam restorations. J Dent Res, 76:5, Abstr #085, p1109, May 9
Amalgambond Plus showed higher long-term bond strength than All-Bond or Multi-Purpose Plus. No evidence of degradation over 7 months (above).
Clinical study of cracked teeth repaired with Amalgambond+ or with pins. At 12 months there is no difference in reten-tion or sensitivity (BUT the dentin of the teeth receiving pins was sealed with Prime&Bond.) “This provides further scientific support for the use of Amalgam-bond Plus.” Ongoing study at Keesler AFB has been reported in Jour Dent Res & JADA.
– Overton JD & Davis RD. Bonded vs Pin-Retained amalgam restorations in the treatment of cracked teeth. J Dent Res. 77: A, Abstr #1530 p297, Mar 98
Bonding of amalgam to bovine teeth using a number of agents including Amalgam-bond Plus. Shear bonds were ridiculously low with one coat (1MPa), and ridiculous-ly high (14-15MPa) with 2 coats. Very strange study. Why enamel? Amalgam is mostly bonded to dentin. Why bovine? From the SEMs it appears that the resin set before the amalgam was condensed. No intermixing.
– Dhanasomboon S, et al. Bonding amalgam to enamel: Shear bond strength and SEM morphology. J our Prosth Dent. 86:3, p297-303, Sept 2001
Amalgambond does not degrade with time. (USAF-TravisAFB). Large 3mm MOD channels prepared in half of the 19 pairs of contralateral 3rd molars. Restored with bonded Tytin. Stored for 6 months and t-cycled 1000 times every month. There was no difference in fracture strength between the restored (654.09 lb) and non-restored (676.94ld) paired teeth at the end of the test.
“Extracted third molars that had large MOD amalgam restorations bonded with refrigerated Amalgambond + HPA had equivalent fracture strengths to their intact contralateral pairs following 6
months of water storage with 4 equidistant thermocycling sessions. Amalgambond Plus proved to be extremely durable under the severe conditions of this study.”
– Hagge MS, et al. Refrigerated Amalgambo-nd-Plus/HPA MOD amalgam restorations: Fracture strength at 6 months. J our Dent Res. 81:Spec, Abstr #1917, Mar 02
This is one of the few studies where All-Bond 2 showed greater bond than Amalgambond. Bond strength data seems very high. Also virtually all other studies suggest that spherical show greater bond strength than admixed. From the descrip-tion, it’s not clear that the researchers used the HPA powder or packed while the adhesive was wet.
– Munoz CA, et al . Amalgam shear bond strength using a single-component adhesive. Jour Dent Res. 81: Spec, Abstr #403, Mar 02
AMALGAMBOND and SENSITIVITY
“Amalgambond provides effective desen-sitizing under crowns & amalgams. “The popularity of bonding amalgam restora-tions has increased in the past 5 years - stimulated by the clinical success with Amalgambond ... Empirical evidence con-cerning Amalgambond Plus with spherical amalgam alloys shows postoperative tooth sensitivity is nearly totally eliminated with use of this 4-META bonding agent.”
– Christensen GJ. Should we be bonding all tooth restorations? Jour Amer Dent Ass, 125:193, Feb 94
Amalgambond under amalgam shows less sensitivity than varnish or 3-coats of Vit-rebond followed by 2 coats of Copalite.
Double-blind study performed at U of TN using Contour (an Ad-Mixed alloy). “The data support the fact that the adhesive liner (Amalgambond) was more effective at controlling postoperative sensitivity than the combination of copal varnish and glass ionomer liner. Double-blind clinical studies like this are the highest quality of study.
– Browning WD. et al. Reduction of post-operative pain: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Jour Amer Dent Ass. 128:12, p1661-1667, Dec 97
A significant decrease in sensitivity was demonstrated for the Amalgambond group over copal varnish. Subjects self-evaluated after 1 day. 71% of the AB patents were pain free (vs 59% of the varnish patients) 8% of the Amalgambond patients had “Moderate or Severe” vs 28% of the var-nish patients. [Performed at Ohio State]
Here are results from similar studies using other adhesive amalgam liners.
a) Advance “(Advance) may be not be more effective at preventing post-treatment sensitivity than conventional varnish...” Used same protocol as the Amalgambond study above (Hadi). (Rosensteil SF, et al. A comparison of post-treatment sensitivity using conven-tional varnish vs adhesive cavity liner. Jour Dent Res. Vol 75: Spec, Abstr #2841, p373, Mar 96)
b) MultiPurpose Plus - under amalgam does not decrease long-term sensitivity [U of FL] (Hucke RD, et al. Effect of resin liners on post operative sensitiv-ity. Jour Dent Res. 75:Spec, Abstr #1268, p176, Mar 96)
c) MultiPurpose - “No significant dif-ference in post-operative sensitivity was found between (copal varnish and Scotchbond MultiPurpose Plus) at any post operative interval. [Keesler AFB](Kennington, et al. Short term clinical evaluation of post operative sensitivity with bonded amalgams. Jour Dent Res. 75: Spec, #Abstr 1260, p175, Mar 96)
d) Panavia 21 - “Post operative sensitiv-ity was present in 10 of 67 bonded and 6 of 67 unbonded (not even varnished!) restorations ... no significant differ-ence.” (Mahler DB, et al. One-year clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations. Jour Amer Dent Ass. 127:245-349, Mar 96)
Valient (admix)
Tytin (spher)
PQ amalgam 18.97 17.27
All-Bond 2 13.12 18.94
All-Bond + Panavia 14.37 11.43
Amalgambond 11.71 12.99
Amalgambond+ AllBond + Resinomer Multipurpose +
Enamel Dentin Enamel Dentin Enamel Dentin
1-week 18.23 13.55 10.10 7.88 10.80 5.70
3-months 20.85 19.66 14.57 8.10 13.94 7.61
7-months 18.48 13.30 11.78 6.53 10.62 4.66
Abdel-Kereim UM, et al. Shear bond strength of amalgam to tooth structure using 3 Adhesive systems: A 7-Month Study. Jour Dent Res: 77: Spec A, Absr #1344, p273, Mar 98
8 Enjoy this article? Visit our article archive to download other free technique articles.
e) “OptiBond - was not found to reduce postoperative sensitivity to cold ... under amalgam [U of TN] (Browning WD, et al. Thermal sensitivity follow-ing bonded amalgam restorations. Jour Dent Res. 75: Spec, Abstr #1234, p172, Mar 96)
– Hadi Z, et al. A comparison of post-treatment sensitivity using adhesive cavity liner vs conventional cavity varnish. J our Dent Res. Vol 77: Spec A, Abstr #1335, p272, Mar 98
An in vivo study of 50 primary molars with large non-retentive MO or BO preps, restored with composite or amal-gam bonded by Amalgambond Plus. Teeth were examined every 3mnths for 15 months, then at 2 & 3 years. No failures. No sensitivity. No sig difference between composite & amalgam. Teeth were later sectioned & examined for leak-age. Though bonded amalgam showed less leakage... the difference wasn’t significant.
– Olmez, et al. Clinical evaluation and mar-ginal leakage of Amalgambond Plus: 3-yr results. Quint Int, 28:10, p651-656, Oct 97
In 40 cracked teeth, Amalgambond with amalgam showed less cold sensitivity than pin/amalgapin restorations even though the pin retained restorations were sealed with Prime & Bond. “..the teeth in the bonded group were significantly less sensitive to cold after 3 months and 12 months than they were at the time of baseline measurements.” Speculated that the AB allowed a more conservative prep.
– Davis RD, Overton JD. The efficacy of bonded and non-bonded amalgam in the treatment teeth with incomplete fractures . JADA. Vol. 131, p469-478. April 00
Amalgambond is effective in desensitiz-ing Class II composites. “Even a minimal coat of 4- methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride, or 4-META (Amalgambond, Parkell Products) as reported almost unanimously by practitioners, reduces or eliminates sensitivity.”Christensen GJ. Preventing sensitivity in class II composite resin restorations. Jour Amer Dent Ass. 129:p1469-1470., Oct 98
1-year review of clinical study comparing Amalgambond to pins. “To date no res-torations have failed, the Amalgambond Plus retained restorations are significantly less sensitive than the Copalite lined and
pin-retained Tytin restorations ... From our data it would seem as though Amal-gambond Plus does decrease thermal sensitivity after restorations are placed.”
– Burgess JO, et al. The bonded and pin-retained complex amalgam restoration - an in vivo examination . Jour Dent Res. To be published.
When sensitive teeth were treated with Amalgambond (but no overlying restora-tion), relief was immediate and long-lasting. At the end of the 6-month recall, 91% of the sensitive teeth treated with Amalgambond continued to show reduced sensitivity. None of the untreated teeth had improved.
– Calamia et al. Effect of Amalgambond (A 4-META bonding Agent) on cervical sensitivity. J Dent Res. 71: Spec, Abstr #216, p132, March 92
The clinical progress of 103 bonded amal-gam restorations was tracked. “Though 27% of the patients complained of hypersensitivity to cold water before treat-ment, only 5% reported thermal sensitivity 10-30 days after treatment. Subjective symptoms had disappeared completely at the 1-year or 1 _ year post-operative recall appointment.Masaka N. Restoring the severely compromised molar through adhesive bonding of amalgam to dentin. Comp Cont Ed Dent. 12:2, p90-98, Feb 91
AMALGAMBOND & PREVENTION OF LEAKAGEAmalgambond prevents leakage and improves retention. In non-undercut
cavity amalgams were thermocycled. Leakage was studied using fluorescent die. “...The use of Amalgambond resulted in significantly less leakage than did the other liners.”
– Charlton DG, et al. In vitro evaluation of the use of resin liners to reduce microleakage and improved retention of amalgam restorations. Oper Dent., 17:3, p112-119, May-June 92
Amalgambond significantly reduces microleakage of amalgam restorations in endodontic access preps.
– Powell BJ, et al. Microleakage of amalgam restorations with and without liners in End-odontic Access Canals. J our Dent Res, 70: Special Issue, Abstr #902, p378, April, 199 1
When placed before retrofill, Amalgam-bond allowed less leakage than All-Bond.
– Subay RK, Subay A. In vitro sealing ability of dentin bonding agents & cavity varnish with amalgam as retrofills. J Endo. 25:3, p157-60, Mar 9 9
Bonded amalgam in endo access prep showed much less leakage than un-bonded. No significant difference between Vitrebond, Amalgambond and Panavia 21. Vitrebond and Panavia became incorporated into the amalgam. Much less incorporation with Amalgambond.– Howdle MD, et al. An in vitro study micro-
leakage around bonded amalgam coronal radicular cores in endodontically treated molar teeth. Quint Int. 33:1, p22-29, Jan 02
Amalgambond showed lowest nanoleak-age in Class V composite restorations. Silux Plus was used to restore dish-shaped cervical cavities then immersed in silver nitrate.
c) Amalgambond .23 d) MultiPurpose .59 e) ProBond .84 f) All-Bond 2 .63 g) Optibond 1.22 h) Permagen 1.28– Berry FA et al. Microleakage of amalgam
restorations using dentin bonding systems. Amer Jour Dent. Aug 96
Bonded amalgam shows far less leakage after cyclical loading. Molar MOD resto-rations were subjected to 2 million 120N loads. Enamel seals in all were ok but “the best dentin seal occurs when adhesive amalgam or glassionomer + adhesive + composite are used.” Seems curious that any adhesive would yield better leakage results AFTER it was subjected to 2 mil-lion loads.
– Villarroel S, et al. The effect of clinical restor-ative technique on the proximal microleak-age of Class II composites. Jour Dent Res. 79: Spec, Abstr #972 p 265, 0 0
Amalgambond Plus penetrates tubules much better than Prime&Bond or Opti-bond even though it uses a less aggressive acid. Penetration was 4 times deeper than Prime&Bond and 12-times deeper than Optibond Solo. The AB hybrid layer was
denser than the others. (Note: Both may be due to the smaller 4-META molecule.) Amalgambond actually showed MORE leakage than the other resins, but all leakage was between the amalgam and the resin. (Amalgam may have been con-densed after the resin had started to cure.) “All 4 systems tested sealed the dentin well.” And once again, Amalgambond with powder showed highest strength.
Shear Bond Strength (MPA)a) Amalgambond Plus - 7.2 b) Prime&Bond 2.1 - 5.4 c) Amalgambond - 2.6 d) Optibond Solo - 2.0
– Grobler SR, et al. Shear bond strength, microleakage, and confocal studies of 4 amalgam alloy bonding agents, Quint Int. 31:7, p501-508, Jul/Aug 2000
Amalgambond used as cement showed less leakage than ZnPO when cast posts were cemented.
– Vichi A, et al. Microleakage tests of cast posts cemented with 5 different cements. J Dent Res. 73:4, Abstr#35, p955, April 94
Bonded amalgam showed less leakage than Copalite or unbonded. Studied Allbond/Liner F, Tenure/Panavia, Syntac/DualCem and Amalgambond with Disper-salloy & Tytin. Tenure/Panavia showed less leakage with Tytin, but no other differences between resins.
– Turner EW, et al. Microleakage of various dentin/amalgam bonding agents. J Dent Res, 73: Spec, Abstr #2286, p388, Mar 94
Bonded amalgam showed less leakage & better margins than unbonded. Amal-gambond did well, but this was true of all bonding agents. Studied margin after occlusal pounding to see if the margin had opened.
– Prati C, et al. Marginal morphology and leakage of amalgam restorations. J Dent Res, Abstr #960, p 221, Mar 94
“The 4-META adhesive appeared to diminish most of the microgap between amalgam and tooth structure, and
appeared to infiltrate into the dentin substrate.”
– Leelawat, et al. Addition of fresh amalgam to existing amalgam utilizing various adhesive liners: A SEM study. J Estht Dent, 4:2, 50-53, Mar-April 92
Amalgambond Plus and Amalgambond 3 (Developmental) showed better marginal integrity before and after loading than other bonding agents. Load consisted of 100,000 chewing cycles.
– Tarim B, et al. Marginal integrity of bonded amalgam restorations. Amer Jour Dent. 9:2, p72-69, April 96
Amalgambond & all other bonded amal-gams (Panavia + Clearfil, All-Bond 2) showed less leakage than plain amalgam.
– Eakle WS, Microleakage with Bonded Amal-gams. 2nd intrnlt Congress Dental Materials, p175, Nov 93
The interface mediated by Amalgam-bond between amalgam and dentin and amalgam/amalgam was compared to that created by varnish and Clearfil New Bond. SEM’s showed a significant reduc-tion in microgaps between fresh amalgam and old amalgam, and between amalgam and dentin with Amalgambond. (Same research cited above in another paper.)
– Leelawat, et al. Addition of fresh amalgam to existing amalgam: A SEM study. J Dent Res, 70: Special Issue, Abstr #274, p300, April, 1991
Amalgambond prevents leakage between amalgam and dentin in Class I restora-tions. Amalgam restorations were placed in recently-extracted caries-free teeth with and without Amalgambond. After thermocycling and aging in fuschin dye, the teeth were sectioned and examined under a microscope. There was a dramatic difference in leakage between the bonded and unbonded restorations. In the restora-tions without Amalgambond, the dye had penetrated as far as the pulp-chamber. In contrast, when the restoration was bonded
10 Enjoy this article? Visit our article archive to download other free technique articles.
with Amalgambond there was no detect-able leakage.
– Scherman PL, et al. L’adhesion des amal-games d’argent aux tussus durs de la dent: etude de l’etancheite de l’Amalgambond. L e Chirirgien-Dentiste de France, # 543, p61-63, Dec 9 0
Amalgambond’s leakage increases with time. After 1 year, Amalgambond and Varnish were not different. Note: This finding is contrary to Yu et al, to Meier’s et al, and to Al-jazairy et al (See all be-low). At the IADR meeting we looked at the 1-year leakage photos. There appeared to be a huge difference between the two sealants. Copalite was red to the pulp. AB was slightly red between amalgam and hybrid. Hard to see if the dye has penetrated the hybrid. (When one of the authors of this paper later conducted a double-blind study to determine the effect of Amalgambond on post-op sensitivity they he concluded that Amalgambond was highly desensitizing. See “Browning” under DESENSITIZATION.)
– Moore DS, et al. Microleakage of amalgam with 4-META vs copal liners. Jour Dent Res. 74: Spec, Abst# 745, p105. Mar 95
“Amalgambond was found to prevent leakage between amalgam and tooth significantly in specimens where 4META adhesive was used as a liner...”
On a scale of 0 (no leakage) to 5 (leak-age to pulp) to ratings were...Amalgambond - 0 Dentin Bonding Agent - 1 Cavity Varnish - 2 Unlined - 4
– Leelawat, et al. Addition of fresh amalgam to existing amalgam: A microleakage study. J Dent Res, 70: Special Issue, Abstr #273, p300, April, 1991
Amalgams bonded with Amalgambond showed less leakage than Copalite or
unlined regardless of the alloy used. Dis-persalloy showed the least leakage. Tytin showed the most.
– Chang JC, et al. Microleakage of 4-META bonding agent with amalgams. J Prosthet Dent. 75:5, p495-498, May 96
Amalgambond and All-Bond provide the greatest seal under both Tytin and Dispersalloy. Greater than Syntac, varnish or nothing.
– Korale MF, Meiers JC. Microleakage of dentin bonding systems used with spherical & admixed amalgams. Amer Jour Dent. to be published
Amalgambond Plus shows no sig. dif-ference in leakage at 4 days and 1 year. Compared Amalgambond Plus, Tenure/Panavia, Syntac/Dual Cement, AllBond 2/Liner F in Class 5 Tytin and admix alloys. All adhesives except Syntac/Dual cement had less leakage than Copalite or no liner. Tenure/Panavia leakage increase signifi-cantly with time. – Meiers JC, Turner EW . Microleakage of
Bonded amalgams show less leakage & marginal gapping after loading. Studied Amalgambond, Multi-Purpose Plus, Vitremer. Subjected samples to 7000 oc-clusal loads. Not much difference between adhesive ...but huge difference between bonded and unbonded. (microns)– Ausiello P, et al. Marginal Quality of Adhe-
sive Class II amalgam restorations. J Dent Res, 76:5, Abstr #085, p1105, May 97
Amalgambond Plus and Panavia 21 show significantly less leakage with a spherical liner than no liner or Copal varnish. Both materials perform best when used in their viscous form.– St Germain HA, et al. Microleakage of amal-
gam alloy adhesive resin systems. Jour Dent Res.77: Spec A, Abstr# 386, p154, Mar 98
All amalgam bonding agents show reduced leakage around Tytin compared with copal varnish.
– Evans DB, et al. A microleakage investiga-tion of 7 amalgam and composite adhesive systems. J our Dent Res. 77: Spec A, Abstr# 385, p154, Mar 98
Amalgambond with composite shows no leakage after t-cycling and 6 month’s ag-ing. All-Bond 2, & Prisma UB 3, showed some gingival leakage... XRV was severe.
– Yu S, et al. The effect of water storage on dentin bond strengths of 8 bonding agents. J our Dent Res. 78: Spec, Abstr #1451, p287, Mar 99
Amalgambond and All-Bond show sig-nificantly lower leakage than Copalite or unlined at both 3 and 6 months.
– Yousra H. Al-Jazairy. Effect of bonded amal-gam restorations on microleakage. Jour Dent Res. 78:5, Abstr #4, p1151, May 99
After loading 4000 times amalgam bonded with either Amalgambond or Panavia 21 showed much worse leakage than bonded composite, compomer or GI. But the researchers wrote that “the Valiant amalgam was condensed 60 seconds after placement of the application of the adhesive agent.” That is, they violated the directions and waited for the AB to cure ... which prevented a bond! They do not in-dicate whether leakage was into the tooth or just between restoration and tooth.
– Ausiello P et al. Debonding of adhesively restored deep Class II MOD restorations. Ame Jour Dent. 12:2, p 84-88, Apr 99
Both Amalgambond Plus and All-bond 2 reduced amalgam leakage there is no trend toward increased leakage over 6-months study. “Since this study used pressure compared to the normal physiologic pulp-al pressure and since less leakage occurs in vivo than in vitro the minute amount of leakage detected in our study may actually not exist clinically ... Microleakage was significantly reduced when Amalgambond Plus and All-Bond 2 were used as liners in comparison to either Copalite varnish or no liner under amalgam restorations. No significant difference was found between the 2 dentin bonding systems at all time periods studied, i.e. 24 hrs, 1 wk, 1,3, and 6 months.”
– Al-jazairy YH, Louka AN: Effect of bonded amalgam restorations on microleakage. Op-erative Dentistry. 24:4, p203-209, July-Aug 99
Multi-Purpose Plus, Amalgambond, All-Bond showed less leakage than copal varnish. Found no difference in sealing ability between adhesives. However, this study was done by 3M.
– Fundingsland JW, et al. Microleakage char-acteristics of a new dental adhesive system J Dent Res, 74: Spec, Abstr 197, p36, Mar 95
Amalgambond with P-50 showed less cervical leakage than unbonded amalgam or Scotchbond 2 with P-50. Note: Unfortunately the study did not include bonded amalgam.
– Hovav S, et al. Microleakage of class 2 Super-bond lined composite restorations with and without a cervical amalgam base. O per Dent. 20:2, 63-67, Mar/April 9 5
“Hydrophilic primers (such as 4-META) cohesively infiltrate the vital dentin substrate to provide a durable hybridized or resin-impregnated layer of dentin to prevent patient postoperative hypersen-sitivity and to prevent future microleak-age through the dentin resin-hybridized interface. These adhesive primers and bonding systems are a rapid and cost-pro-ductive means to ensure routine structural reinforcement of the underlying remaining dentin while being totally biocompatible to the pulp.” “These adhesive systems should now be re-evaluated for routine clinical augmentation to take the place of conventional Ca(OH)2 liners and bases, as the new concept of pulp protection.”
– Cox, et al. Re-evaluating pulp protection: calcium hydroxide liners vs. cohesive hybrid-ization. J Amer Dent Ass. 125:823-831, July 95
Amalgambond significantly outperforms cavity varnish in preventing leakage at the cervical margin of Class V amalgam restorations.
– Abraham M, et al. Studies concerning Amal-gambond. Research Monograph , College of Dental Surgery -Manipal Academy of Higher Education. June 95.
Most amalgam adhesives reduce leakage over copal varnish. These box-shaped Class V restorations were T-cycled 3000 times.
– Turner EW, et al. Microleakage of dentin-bonding agents. Amer Dent Jour. 8:4, 187-190, Aug 95
HPA powder improves leakage and bond strength performance to Permite C (which expands) and Tytin (which contracts). This is another of Mahler’s studies using Macor as a surrogate for dentin. Studied 2 unfilled adhesives (Multi-Purpose and Amalgambond) and 2 “filled” adhesives (Amalgambond Plus and Panavia 21.)
Leakage – With expanding Permit C all adhesives showed zero leakage. With contracting Tytin only AB+ and Panavia showed zero leakage
Bond –MultiPurpose and Amalgambond showed low bond to both allys. Amalgambond Plus and Panavia showed high bond to both alloys.
– Mahler DB, et al. Effect of dimensional change of the amalgam on amalgam bond-ing. J our Dent Res. 80: Spec, Abstr #054, p42, Mar 2001
Bonded amalgam in endo-treated molars dramatically reduced leakage over non-bonded amalgam. Placed in access hole and first few mms of canals. No statistical difference between Vitrebond, Panavia 21, and Amalgambond Plus.
– Howdle, et al. An in vitro study of coronal microleakage around coronal-radicular cores in endodontically treated molar teeth. Quint Int. 33:1, p22-29, Jan 02
AMALGAMBOND & COMPOSITEAmalgambond showed slightly higher bonds than All-Bond, virtually the same as Multi-Purpose. Concluded “Different
test methods generate different bonding strengths
a) Tested using pull shear test - MPa 1) Amalgambond - 14.9 2) Multi-Purpose - 14.1 3) Bond-It - 13.5 4) All-Bond - 11.8
b) Tested using push shear test - MPa 1) Bond-It - 23.4 2) All-Bond - 18.4
– Jia W, et al. Dentin bond strength with 2 test-ing methods. J Dent Res. 74: Spec, June 95
Amalgambond a bit stronger than All-Bond, but lower than Optibond. These researchers were attempting to see if adding filler to bonding agent increased bond strength.
– Fanning DE, et al. Effect of a filled adhesive on bond strength in 3 dentinal bonding systems. Gen Dent, 43:3, p256-262, 95
Amalgambond and All-Bond had the highest composite to dentin bonds. Triolo PT,
MPa a) Amalgambond 23.3 b) AllBond 19.3 c) Clearfil Photo 13.3 d) Prisma UB3 12.0 e) Powerbond 5.4 f) XR Bonding System 4.5 g) Scotchbond 2 4.4 h) Tenure 2.8 i) Gluma 2.7 j) Scotchbond DC 1.3
– Swift EJ. Shear bond strengths of 10 dentin adhesive systems. Dent Materials. 8:370-374, Nov 92
Amalgambond showed much greater gap-ping than All-Bond II when used for Class II composite.
(Note: Authors admitted that they did not wait for Amalgambond to cure before they applied the composite. THIS IS A VIOLA-TION OF THE INSTRUCTIONS as the
12 Enjoy this article? Visit our article archive to download other free technique articles.
contraction forces of the curing composite will be applied before the bond has been established)
– Garberoglio R, et al. Contraction gaps in Class II restorations with self-cure and light-cure resin composites. Amer Jour Dent. 8:6, p303-307, Dec 95
Amalgambond Plus showed much higher bond strengths than other materials studied.
MPa a) Imperva 6.8 b) Tokusa LB 6.1 c) Clearfil LB 4.5 d) Scotchbond MP 7.5 e) Amalgambond Plus 21.0 f) Gluma 4.0
– Wakasa K, et al. Calculation of fracture stress during bond test. Jour Dent Res. 7 5: Spec, Abstr #1764, p238, Mar 96
Amalgambond showed highest bonds to both crown and root dentin. “(Amal-gambond) showed the greatest (tensile) strength and ProBond the least.” The Amalgambond hybrid however seemed to dissolve in sodium hyporchlorite.
a) Coronal Dentin (MPa)1) Amalgambond - 19.7 2) Liner Bond II - 14.3 3) All-Bond 2 - 9.5 4) ProBond - 9.4
b) Radicular Dentin (MPa)1) Amalgambond - 20.8 2) Liner Bond II - 11.5 3) All-Bond 2 - 12.3 4) ProBond - 10.8
Burrow MF, et al. Bond strength to crown and root dentin, Amer Jour Dent. 9:5, p223-229,Oct 96
The results of this study conflict with a number of others which show excellent stability for Amalgambond (Imbery, Lo, Abdel-Kereim, Hagge, Meiers, etc). Though neither Amalgambond not All-Bond showed marginal gaps or any evi-dence of leakage, Amalgambond did show gaps at the floor. P-50 was the restorative. Both agents showed a drop in bond after immersion for 6 months. But no increase in leakage. (Possible overetch? Or use of phosphoric acid in place of 10-3?)
– Gwinnett AJ, Yu S. Effect of long term water storage on dentin bonding. Amer J Dent. 8:2, p109-111, April 95
Amalgambond and Prime&Bond 2.1 pro-vide better composite-to dentin shear bond strength than self-etch Etch & Prime.
MPa a) Etch & Prime – 13.00 b) Amalgambond – 20.26 c) Prime & Bond – 23.61
– Segre INW, et al. Shear Bond Strength evaluation of different hydrophilic adhesive systems. J our Dent Res. 79: Spec, Abstr #1850, p375, Apr 2000
Amalgambond for primary teeth showed significantly higher composite-to-dentin shear strength (17.96) than Optibond (6.07) or One-Step (11.79)
– Jumlongras D, White GE. Bonding to Primary Dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 21:3, p223-9, Spring 97
Amalgambond bonded composites showed MUCH less gapping and leakage than PhotoBond or LinerBond 2 under every condition. Despite the fact that Amalgambond has lower bond strengths. “There is a poor correlation between cav-ity wall (c-factor) and bond strength.”
– Yoshikawa T, et al. The effects of bonding system and light curing method on reduc-ing stress of different c-factor cavities. Jour Adhesive Dent. 3:2, p177-183, Summer 2001
Amalgambonded composites show less leakage and gapping than Photobond. And this is true regardless of the curing pattern.
– Yoshikawa T, et al. A light curing method for improving marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation of resin composite restorations. Dent Matrls. 17:p359-366, 2001
The ability of Amalgambond to bond Z100 to dentin that had been dried was measured using its AA component to rewet or HEMA in other solvents.
– Carvalho RM et al. Effects of Different HEMA/Solvent experimental primers on bond strength to dentin. J our Dent Res. 81: Spec, Abstr #182, Mar 02
AMALGAMBOND & CUSP REINFORCEMENTAmalgambond strengthens wide MOD cusps but not narrow. With Amalgambond “Use of adhesive resins to bond amalgam MOD restorations to molars increased the fracture resistance of the teeth ... (With Amalgambond) Large preparations were strengthened by 72% ... In general, the effectiveness of adhesives in our study ranked C&B-Metabond>Amalgambond> Panavia.”
– Boyer DB, Roth L . Fracture resistance of teeth with bonded amalgams. Amer Jour Dent. 7:4, 91-94, April 94
Amalgambond reinforces cusps. “Amal-gam plus Amalgambond was stronger than amalgam alone. This finding appears to support the use of Amalgambond in those areas where optimum strength of the restored tooth is necessary.”
– Christensen GJ, et al. Influence of Amalgam-bond on cusp fracture resistance of molar teeth. J Dent Res, 70: Spec, Abstr #279, p300, April 91
All bonding agents help resist cusp fracture slightly. No difference between different agents. Large MODs.
– Roth L, Boyer D. Cusp fracture in molars with bonded amalgams. J Dent Res. 73: Spec, Abstr #958, p 221, Mar 94
MOD amalgams bonded with Amalgam-bond Plus restore stiffness of tooth as well as composite. “Restoring the prepared tooth with bonded amalgam or bonded composite recovered the lost tooth stiff-ness significantly.” U of Lisbon
Stiffness1. Unprepped - 100% 2. Prepped - 42%
The following were all bonded with Amalgambond Plus3. Disperslly - 91% 4. Z100 - 99% 5. Tytin - 103%
– Lopes L, et al. The effect of Amalgambond Plus on the stiffness of teeth restored with amalgam and composite. J our Dent Res. 80: Spec, Abstr 229, p1229, 2001
When large MOD amalgams were bonded with refrigerated Amalgambond they restored fracture strength to 81% of the intact molars. The preps in teeth without bonded restorations reduced strength to just 47% of intact teeth. “Suggesting sub-stantial reinforcement by Amalgambond with HPA.”
– Lindemuth JS, et al. Reinforcement of large MOD amalgam restorations using refriger-ated Amalgambond Plus/HPA. J our Dent Res. 80: Spec, Abstr #036, p40, Mar 2001
Amalgambond Plus reduces cusp mi-crostrain in teeth restored with MOD amalgams. (Research at University of Toronto) “Bonding amalgam restorations to tooth structure significantly decreased outward cuspal deflection of premolar teeth compared to nonbonded amalgam restorations. Cyclic leading for up to 8000 cycles had no adverse effect on the bond.”
– Roth L, et al. Cusp reinforcement in molars with bonded amalgams. J Dent Res, 72: Spec, Abstr 980, p226, Mar 93
Amalgambond initially strengthens cusps but after aging, t-cycling or 500 day storage the cusp strength was indistin-guishable from copal varnish. Note: This study was performed by Shane White who has never had much success using ANY 4-META product. Curiously, the authors mention that the same drop-off has been reported with composite not bonded with 4-META.
– Bonilla E, White SN. Fatigue of resin-bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 21:3, p122-125, May-June 96
Amalgambond increases cusp strength of endo-treated teeth. “Cusps reinforced with either a dentin adhesive or horizontal pins
were as fracture resistant as complete coverage amalgam restorations. Cusps re-inforced with a combination of pins and a dentin adhesive were as fracture resistant as intact teeth.” Keesler AFB
– Uyehara MY, et al. Cuspal reinforcement in endodontically-treated molars. Research Monograph. Oper Dent. 24:6, p364-370, Nov-Dec 99
Bonding unsupported enamel doesn’t have much effect. BUT Amalgambond + Amalgam was slightly stronger than bonded Z100.
– Latino CJ, et al. Support of occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials. J our Dent Res. 78: Spec, Abstr #347, p149, Mar 99
In class II proximal restorations, bonded composite and compomer survived much higher loads than amalgams bonded with Amalgambond (Note: they didn’t use the HPA powder.)
– Yaman SD, et al. Fracture resistance of Class II approximal slot restorations. Jour Prosth Dent. 84:3, p297-302, Sept 2000
Bonded amalgams in MOD’s splint the cusps together and restore 39% to 61% of the stiffness lost to tooth preparation. Unbonded amalgams produced a “negli-gible increase” (5%) “amalgam adhesives may contribute to the strengthening of weakened cusps.”
– Pilo R, et al. Cusp reinforcement by bonding of amalgam restorations. Jour Dent, 26:5-6, p467-72, Jul-Aug 98
Amalgam bonded with Amalgambond Plus improves the fracture resistance of teeth with MOD restorations only mini-mally. Not statistically different. 10 teeth in each group
– Lopes L, The effect of Amalgambond Plus on the fracture strength of teeth restored with amalgam and composite. J our Dent Res. 80: Spec, Abstr #228, p1229, 200 1
