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

Amalgam retention using pins, boxes, and Amalgambond

G M Fischer1, G P Stewart, J Panelli

  • 1Department of Growth, Development and Structure, Southern Illinois University, School of Dental Medicine, Alton 62002.

American Journal of Dentistry
|August 1, 1993
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

Splenic and peritoneal B-1 cells differ in terms of transcriptional and proliferative features that separate peritoneal B-1 from splenic B-2 cells.

Cellular immunology·2001
Same author

Treatment for the Caisson disease.

Pharmacy in history·2001
Same author

Caries detection accuracy by multiple clinicians and techniques.

General dentistry·2001
Same author

Effect of dentin primer on shear bond strength of composite resin to moist and dry enamel.

Operative dentistry·2001
Same author

STAT3 activation, chemokine receptor expression, and cyclin-Cdk function in B-1 cells.

Current topics in microbiology and immunology·2000
Same author

Evaluation of root reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth.

Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics·2000
Same journal

Surface hardness ratios and surface roughness of bulk-fill resin composites following different heating protocols.

American journal of dentistry·2026
Same journal

Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength of flowable single-shade bulk-fill composites.

American journal of dentistry·2026
Same journal

Effect of pre-diagnostic stain removal on the detection of occlusal fissure caries: A laboratory study.

American journal of dentistry·2026
Same journal

A randomized controlled clinical evaluation of anti-gingivitis and desensitizing efficacy of a newly developed toothpaste with zinc chloride and oriental herb extract.

American journal of dentistry·2026
Same journal

Agreement among tooth color measurement devices: An experimental comparison.

American journal of dentistry·2026
Same journal

Locally delivered simvastatin and rosuvastatin in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

American journal of dentistry·2026
See all related articles

Dental amalgam retention was compared using pins, boxes, and Amalgambond adhesive. Pins alone and Amalgambond with boxes showed similar, superior retention compared to boxes or adhesive alone.

Area of Science:

  • Dental Materials Science
  • Restorative Dentistry

Background:

  • Amalgam restorations require mechanical or chemical retention to tooth structure.
  • Various methods like pins, retentive boxes, and bonding agents are used to enhance amalgam retention.
  • Understanding the comparative retentive strength of these methods is crucial for clinical success.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the retentive strength of dental amalgam bonded to tooth structure using pins, retentive boxes, Amalgambond adhesive alone, and a combination of Amalgambond adhesive with retentive boxes.

Main Methods:

  • Four groups of amalgam restorations were prepared: pins only, boxes only, Amalgambond adhesive only, and Amalgambond adhesive plus retentive boxes.
  • The retentive strength of each group was measured and statistically analyzed.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • No statistically significant difference (P = 0.05) was found between the retentive strength of amalgam using pins alone and that using Amalgambond adhesive plus retentive boxes.
  • Both the pins alone group and the Amalgambond adhesive plus retentive boxes group exhibited statistically greater retentive strengths compared to the boxes only group and the Amalgambond adhesive only group.

Conclusions:

  • Combining Amalgambond adhesive with retentive boxes or using pins alone provides superior amalgam retention to tooth structure compared to using retentive boxes or Amalgambond adhesive independently.
  • These findings suggest that mechanical retention features (pins or boxes) are critical for maximizing amalgam bond strength when used with or without adhesive systems.