Ten-year in vitro assessment of the surface status of three retrofilling materials

Sixty-one maxillary central incisors were collected, cleaned, and divided into six groups of 10 teeth, with one tooth as a control. Half of the teeth were resected with a high-speed bur and half with a slow-speed bur, and prepared for retrofillings. Retrofillings of EBA cement and Ketac cement were placed in 10 teeth, each of the high-speed and slow-speed groups. Similarly++, zinc containing amalgam was placed in 10 teeth of the high-speed group, and zinc-free amalgam was placed in 10 teeth in the slow-speed group. A single operator completed all retrofills. They were stored in physiological saline for 10 yr. After that period, the apical portions were photographed at X 30 magnification and evaluated by the authors for marginal discrepancies, root crazing, staining, voids, and roughness. Overall, EBA cement++ and amalgam rated better than Ketac cement in every category except root crazing. Perhaps, as some studies have suggested, EBA cement may replace amalgam as the retrofill material of choice.