title: Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Dental caries (tooth decay) is one of the commonest diseases which afflicts mankind, and has been estimated to affect up to 80% of people in high-income countries. Caries adversely affects and progressively destroys the tissues of the tooth, including the dental pulp (nerve), leaving teeth unsightly, weakened and with impaired function. The treatment of lesions of dental caries, which are progressing through dentine and have caused the formation of a cavity, involves the provision of dental restorations (fillings). This review updates the previous version published in 2009.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effects of adhesive bonding on the in-service performance and longevity of dental amalgam restorations.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2016) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2016). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) (both to 21 January 2016) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled trials comparing adhesively bonded versus traditional non-bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention, in adults with permanent molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II amalgam restorations only.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed the risk of bias in the included study.
  
  
  RESULTS
  One trial with 31 patients who received 113 restorations was included. At two years, 50 out of 53 restorations in the non-bonded group survived, and 55 of 60 bonded restorations survived with five unaccounted for at follow-up. Post-insertion sensitivity was not significantly different (P > 0.05) at baseline or two-year follow-up. No fractures of tooth tissue were reported and there was no significant difference between the groups or matched pairs of restorations in their marginal adaptation (P > 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a two-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.
authors.affiliation: Section of Restorative Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, USA, CA 90095-1668.
authors.forename: Anirudha
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Agnihotry
authors.forename: Zbys
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Fedorowicz
authors.forename: Mona
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nasser
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003723:Dental Amalgam / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000628:therapy*; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans
chemical_list: D003723:Dental Amalgam