Ten-year in vitro assessment of the surface status of three retrofilling materials.
Sixty-one maxillary central incisors were collected, cleaned, and divided into six groups of 10 teeth, with one tooth as a control. Half of the teeth were resected with a high-speed bur and half with a slow-speed bur, and prepared for retrofillings. Retrofillings of EBA cement and Ketac cement were placed in 10 teeth, each of the high-speed and slow-speed groups. Similarly++, zinc containing amalgam was placed in 10 teeth of the high-speed group, and zinc-free amalgam was placed in 10 teeth in the slow-speed group. A single operator completed all retrofills. They were stored in physiological saline for 10 yr. After that period, the apical portions were photographed at X 30 magnification and evaluated by the authors for marginal discrepancies, root crazing, staining, voids, and roughness. Overall, EBA cement++ and amalgam rated better than Ketac cement in every category except root crazing. Perhaps, as some studies have suggested, EBA cement may replace amalgam as the retrofill material of choice.
Biggs
J T
JT
Department of Endodontics, University of Oklahoma College Dentistry, Oklahoma City, OK 73190, USA.
Benenati
F W
FW
Powell
S E
SE
D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D003723:Dental Amalgam / Q000737:chemistry; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D004356:Drug Storage; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D015588:Observer Variation; D012184:Retrograde Obturation; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors; D015032:Zinc / Q000032:analysis
D003722:Dental Alloys; C022998:EBA alumina cement; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; C074934:Ketac Endo; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; C033470:Dispersalloy; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D015032:Zinc; D000537:Aluminum Oxide