MECHANICAL RETENTION VERSUS BONDING OF AMALGAM AND GALLIUM ALLOY RESTORATIONS

The retention of amalgam and gallium alloy restorations in proximal box forms was measured in vitro, and three different adhesives to conventional undercuts were compared. For control, restorations were placed without undercuts or adhesives. No significant difference was found between amalgam and gallium alloys with each of the five methods of retention used. Alloys placed without retention or adhesives were significantly less retentive than all other groups. When Tytin alloy was used, no difference was found in retention among the restorations retained with Panavia or All-Bond adhesive or an occlusal dovetail and retention grooves, but Amalgambond adhesive was less retentive than all three of these methods. When gallium alloy was used, both Panavia and All-Bond adhesive were more retentive than undercuts, but the effect of Amalgambond adhesive was comparable to that of undercuts. The results of this study indicate that adhesives could be used in place of traditional undercuts to retain amalgam and gallium alloys, thus saving a considerable amount of tooth structure.