Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Should I be using amalgam or composite restorative materials?

R W Phillips

    International Dental Journal
    |December 1, 1975
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Optical coatings for document security.

    Applied optics·2010
    Same author

    Effect of sodium hexametaphosphate on teeth.

    Journal of dental research·2010
    Same author

    Effects of variation in the mercury-alloy ratio upon the amalgam filling.

    Journal of dental research·2010
    Same author

    Studies on density of castings as related to the position in the ring.

    Journal of dental research·2010
    Same author

    Yaks and yak-cattle hybrids in Asia.

    The Journal of heredity·2010
    Same author

    Evaluation of species crosses of cattle by polyallel crossing; a study of zebu and Africander X Aberdeen-Angus cattle under subtropical conditions.

    The Journal of heredity·2010
    Same journal

    Sidt2 Knockdown Aggravates Apical Periodontitis Via Autocrine Tumour Necrosis Factor-Alpha.

    International dental journal·2026
    Same journal

    Effects of Abrasive Flow Finishing on the Surface Quality, Frictional Resistance, and Biological Performance of Brackets.

    International dental journal·2026
    Same journal

    Pinocembrin Alleviates Gingival Fibroblast Senescence in a Mouse Model of Periodontitis Via CYP1B1 Downregulation.

    International dental journal·2026
    Same journal

    Validity of a Combined General and Oral Health Indicator for Vulnerability.

    International dental journal·2026
    Same journal

    Letter to the Editor on the e-SEM Programme: Methodological Considerations and Critical Perspectives on a Theory-Driven Digital Oral Health Intervention by Acosta and Pisarnturakit.

    International dental journal·2026
    Same journal

    Electric vs Manual Toothbrushing Effects on QLF-Assessed Plaque in Smokers and Non-Smokers: A 24-Week RCT.

    International dental journal·2026
    See all related articles

    Dental composites offer aesthetic advantages but show limitations in durability compared to amalgam for posterior restorations. Amalgam remains preferable for Class I and II cavities due to superior clinical performance, despite composite material advancements.

    Area of Science:

    • Dental Materials Science
    • Restorative Dentistry

    Background:

    • Composite materials initially used for specific cavity classes are now widely applied.
    • Advancements have led to their consideration for Class I and II restorations, challenging traditional amalgam use.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the physical properties and clinical performance of composite materials against amalgam.
    • To evaluate the suitability of composites for various cavity classes, particularly Class I and II.

    Main Methods:

    • Laboratory testing of physical properties including hardness, thermal conductivity, and aesthetics.
    • Clinical research assessing long-term performance, color stability, marginal integrity, and wear resistance.

    Main Results:

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Laboratory data shows composites comparable to amalgam in most properties, except hardness, with better aesthetics and lower thermal conductivity.
  • Clinical studies reveal composites exhibit color degradation, inferior marginal seal, and poor abrasion resistance due to filler-resin bond failure.

    • Conclusions:

    • Amalgam is currently superior for Class I and II restorations due to better clinical durability and marginal integrity.
    • Composite materials are recommended primarily for situations where aesthetics are the paramount concern.