Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Article Menu
Export Article
More by Authors Links
Article Data
- Views 195
- Dowloads 129
Original Research
Open AccessGallium alloy versus high copper amalgam: a comparative evaluation of corrosion resistance and microleakage in the primary teeth
Gallium alloy versus high copper amalgam: a comparative evaluation of corrosion resistance and microleakage in the primary teeth
1Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Derlakatte, Mangalore-574 160, Karnataka, India
DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.24.4.968112r9pr8833g5 Vol.24,Issue 4,July 2000 pp.315-319
Published: 01 July 2000
*Corresponding Author(s): A.K. Munshi E-mail: none
Abstract
In vivo corrosion and in vitro microleakage of a gallium based and a high copper amalgam alloys were evaluated. Twenty-five primary molars each were restored with Galloy and DPI alloy respectively and evaluated, over a period of three months, for various aspects of corrosion in the oral cavity. Additionally ten primary molars were utilized for evaluation of microleakage by dye penetration after having them restored with the two materials. Gallium alloy restorations showed better marginal adaptation, clinically when compared to amalgam restorations. No significant difference was observed for the degree of microleakage around gallium alloy and amalgam restorations.
Cite and Share
A.K. Munshi,Amitha M. Hegde,Sajith Bhaskar. Gallium alloy versus high copper amalgam: a comparative evaluation of corrosion resistance and microleakage in the primary teeth. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2000. 24(4);315-319.
References
1. Osborne JW, Summitt VB. Mechanical properties and clinical performance of a gallium restorative material. Operative Dentistry 20: 241-245, 1995.
2. Kaga M, Nakajima H, Sakai T, Oguchi H. Gallium alloy restorations in primary teeth. A 12 month study. J Am Dent Assoc 127: 1195-1200, 1996.
3. Osborne JW, Norman RD. 13 year clinical assessment of 10 amalgam alloys. Dent Mater 6: 189-194, 1990.
4. Blair FM, Whitworth JM, McCabe JF. The physical properties of a gallium alloy restorative material. Dent Mater. 11: 277-280, 1995.
5. Psarras V, Wennberg A, Dorand T. Cytotoxicity of corroded gallium and dental amalgam alloys. Acta Odontol Scand 50: 31-36, 1992.
6. Smith DL, Caul HJ, Sweeney WT. Some physical properties of gallium. Copper tin alloy. J Am Dent Assoc 53: 677-685, 1956.
7. Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Bonding of amalgam and a gallium alloy to bovine dentin. Operative Dentistry 23: 195-202, 1998.
8. Motokawa W, et al. Studies on biological evaluation of gallium alloy I. Pulp irritation in primary teeth. J Fukuoka Dent Coll 14: 249- 257, 1987.
9. Dilley DC, Vann WF Jr, Oldenburg TR, Crisp RM. Time required for replacement of composite versus amalgam restorations. J Dent Child 57: 177-183, 1990.
10. Duperon DF, Nevile MD, Kassloff Z. Clinical evaluation of corrosion resistance of conventional alloy, spherical particle alloy and dispersion phase alloy. J Prosth Dent 25: 650-656, 1971.
11. Ravindar P, Amitha H, Munshi AK. Laser and light cured composite resin restorations. In-vitro comparison of isotope and dye penetrations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 20: 213-218, 1996.
12 Kim HW. The clinical observation of gallium alloys as a new dental restorative material for primary teeth. J Fukuoka Dent Coll 14: 395-400, 1988.
13. Navarro MFL, Franco EB, Bastos PAM, Carvaiho RM, Teixeira LC. Clinical evaluation of gallium alloy as a posterior restorative material. Quintessence Int 27: 315-320, 1996.
14. Berglund A, Zhao L, Yamashita Y, Guo IV, Nakajima H, Okabe T. Dimensional changes during setting of three gallium alloys. J Dent Res AADR 74 (Abst 738): 104, 1995.
15. Winkler M, Moore K, Rhodes B, Swartz M. Gallium amalgam versus mercury amalgam: microleakage and retention. Indiana Univ Dent Sch (Research file), Oct. 1995.
Submission Turnaround Time
Top