Re: How do amalgam fillings work?Hey Marvin,,,,,,, have you checked out Dentaltown,com ??
--
/
Amatus
/
"DrMarvin/Natural Dentist" <powaydentist@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:a99dd52b-d527-4f3f-aa93-ef383eddfea8@z16g2000prn.googlegroups,com ...
On Jun 5, 11:37 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins,com > wrote:
> Robert wrote:
> > "Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldm...@dentaltwins,com > wrote in message
> >news:LuS1k.2532$Yw1.606@trndny02...
> >> Robert wrote:
> >>> Just out of curiousity, how do amalgam fillings work? Composite
> >>> fillings
> >>> need some sort of adhesive. How do amalgams adhere to the teeth?
>
> >> Amalgam does not adhere to the tooth, but it does expand on setting.
> >> The
> >> dimensional change is much less than that of even the best composite
> >> resins, but it cannot be bonded effectively (the Parkell company on
> >> Long
> >> Island was claiming for a while that their product "amalgambond" could
> >> bond amalgam, but I have my doubts about that--I can't even conceive of
> >> how that would work.
>
> > That is interesting. I once had an amalgam filling that was put into a
> > cracked tooth where half the tooth in the back was missing. I wonder
> > what
> > held the amalgam in since there was little or no "other side" of the
> > tooth.
>
> Sometimes it's magic. Seriously, I've seen restorations like this with
> no visible means of support that have remained for many years. Clearly
> there must be some retentive elements somewhere within the cavity
> preparation. Dynamics of chewing must also play a role.
>
>
>
> > Does that mean that amalgams eventually crack teeth? If so, do they do
> > so
> > more or less than composites?
>
> This one has been batted around for years, and I haven't heard a
> satisfactory answer. Undoubtedly this is because there are so many
> factors involved in longevity of a filling, fracture of teeth, etc.
> Generally speaking, the teeth that crack are the teeth where good
> guidelines for restorations are ignored. Bill (dentaldoc) alluded to
> cavity forms for amalgams, first codified by G.V. Black almost 150 years
> ago (and modified by Bronner). Specifically, because of the prismatic
> nature of amalgam, restorations should never be made that are more than
> 1/3 the distance between the cusp tips. Cavity preparations wider than
> this should be extended over the side of the tooth.
> These guidelines are routinely ignored, because people don't want
> amalgam showing on the sides of the teeth. In these cases, it is
> impossible to tell if the fracture has occurred as a consequence of
> amalgam expansion, or of leaving what's called "unsupported" amalgam in
> the prepared tooth. I suspect it's a combination of both, but for sure
> narrower amalgams are much less likely to fracture the teeth.
> I can't say overall that there is a greater or lesser chance of
> fracture with composite. In my office, there is certainly a greater
> incidence of recurrent decay in composites. This is doubtless mostly in
> those cases in which the margin ends partially on enamel and partially
> on dentin.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http :// www .dentaltwins,com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've experienced the same in my office. Composite restorations
do have recurrent decay because they're so dependent upon
the bonding technique (and with dentists trying to get them
done faster... there will probably occur more often)
The amalgams do leak too but the corrosion does have something
to do with the recurrent decay.
You would expect the opposite (more decay without bonding as in
the amalgam). But the proof lies in the clinical world.
Dr. Marvin
http :// www .drmarvin,com