Secondary caries around amalgam restorations
References (21)
- et al.
Cross-sectional clinical evaluation of recurrent enamel caries, restorations of marginal integrity, and oral hygiene status
J Am Dent Assoc
(1981) - et al.
Marginal fracture not a predictor of longevity for two dental amalgam alloys: a 10 year study
J Prosthet Dent
(1983) - et al.
Variation among dentists in planning treatment
Br Dent J
(1983) - et al.
Variation in radio-graphic caries diagnosis and treatment decisions among university teachers
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol
(1982) Placement and replacement of restorations
Oper Dent
(1981)Frequency of secondary caries at various anatomical locations
Oper Dent
(1985)- et al.
Replacement of silver amalgam restorations by dentists during 246 working days
J Can Dent Assoc
(1973) - et al.
Histopathology of experimental in vivo caries around silver amalgam fillings
Caries Res
(1972) - et al.
Histopathology of natural caries around silver amalgam fillings
Caries Res
(1974) - et al.
Light microscopic study of the effect of probing in occlusal surfaces
Caries Res
(1987)
Cited by (38)
An in vitro study on the secondary caries-prevention properties of three restorative materials
2013, Journal of Prosthetic DentistryDetection of proximal secondary caries at cervical class II-amalgam restoration margins in vitro
2012, Journal of DentistryCitation Excerpt :However, we did not estimate the former attachment level of the teeth and the respective distance from restoration margin to the gingiva in this study. It appears thus, that defective proximal amalgam restoration margins, as established for occlusal restorations before are not per se indicative for the presence of secondary caries.29,30 It was shown in a clinical trial that only 14% of the teeth with clinically defective margins also presented caries in the radiograph.31
Alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations: Results of a seven-year clinical study
2011, Journal of the American Dental AssociationCitation Excerpt :Despite the fact that some investigators have associated microleakage with secondary caries formation,28,29 the majority of evidence16,17,30 suggests that no relationship exists between the development of secondary caries and the size of the leakage, except in cases in which the occlusal crevice exceeds 250 micrometers29 or 400 μm.31 Therefore, researchers have presented substantial evidence that in amalgam restorations with defective margins and crevices smaller than 400 μm, no secondary caries will develop.15,16,17 Because we observed most of the downgraded and failed restorations during the first two years of clinical service, we elected to carry forward the change-in-level scores for restorations not seen at the seven-year evaluation for analytical purposes.
Crystal growth by fluoridated adhesive resins
2008, Dental MaterialsA clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: Results at eight years
2007, Journal of the American Dental AssociationCitation Excerpt :Marginal breakdown has been reported to be one feature of resin-based composite restorations that can lead to secondary caries.35 Several studies,36–38 however, have challenged the notion that marginal breakdown leads to secondary caries. No relationship exists between the development of secondary caries and the size of the crevice at the tooth-restoration interface,36–38 except in cases of macroleakage in which the crevice exceeds 250 nanometers36 or 400 nm.37
Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries
2005, Journal of the American Dental AssociationCitation Excerpt :However, they rarely develop carious lesions, because recurrent carious lesions seldom are diagnosed on the occlusal surface. In fact, a study of ditched and nonditched margins of amalgam restorations has shown that there is no difference in the presence of carious lesions in the two situations.47 It is important in this situation to keep in mind that an explorer will stick in any crevice, regardless of whether it is carious.