
by David Clark, DDS
Sadly, outcome studies support amalgam as a superior choice when compared to posterior
composite restorations. However, with a modern approach taken to composite dentistry,
I have found that not only can outcomes be better, but quality of life for the patient and the
health of the tooth and tissue can also be superior. The issue is that if this argument is framed
with the current G.V. Black model of cavity preparations, then the most honest response is to
concede to the amalgam standpoint.
The Prep – Not the Restorative Material – is the Issue
I view this not as an argument, but rather as an enlightenment process. My esteemed colleague
is absolutely correct when he states that amalgam does not contribute to cusp fractures.
Studies done on Class I and II composites versus Class I and II amalgams cut with G.V. Black
preparations have found the cuspal fracture rate to be about the same for both groups. If we
are going to stay mired in the old system of retentive G.V. Black cavity preparations, composite
has no advantages over amalgam in protecting the tooth from fracturing. The truthful
answer is that it is not amalgam or composite that leads to cusp fracturing – it is G.V. Black
preparations. Cracking and fracturing combined are the third leading cause of tooth loss in
industrialized nations. Dentists have the responsibility to stop weakening teeth, and that can
only be accomplished by the elimination of archaic retentive preparations.
If we redesign the cavity prep, then we can eliminate fracturing by creating cavity preparations
that, first, do not weaken the tooth, and second, allow the composite to wrap around
the tooth. Initial studies have shown that new cavity preparations actually allow the composite
to strengthen the tooth.
Changing Principles
The case shown here illustrates all the advantages we can realize with composite. But in
order to place composite restorations that will outlast amalgam, a number of factors in dentists’
approach to the restoration must change. First and foremost, a pre-wedge is necessary to
place these posterior composites (Fig. 2). The soft wooden wedge (Bioclear) used in this step,
prior to creating the preparation, retracts the tissue so we have better visualization and allows
us to control bleeding and achieve tight contacts.
The second step that is critical to the success of the composite restoration is to move away
from a retentive preparation. The creation of mechanical retention in a preparation increases
the risk of exposing pulp. In the era of modern dentistry there are no more pulp exposures, as
one of the advantages of using direct composite is that with a very aggressive surface prep and
better vision, the clinician can be more careful to avoid running into the pulp. Total access and
visualization for final caries removal allowed me to simply scrub away the final caries near the
pulp horn with sodium hypochlorite and a microbrush (Fig. 3).
Restorations that Enable Healthy Tissue and Strong Teeth
A careful examination of the tissue in the interproximal area of the case shown displays two
very excellent amalgam restorations with perfect margins, but tissue that is chronically
inflamed. This is common around Class II amalgams, due to the fact that it is impossible to
polish this area effectively and the tarnish can lead to mild inflammation. This highlights an
additional advantage of the incredible shine of Filtek Supreme Ultra restorative and its ability
to retain that shine. The clinician can expect better tissue
response over the long term.
An additional advantage of composite versus amalgam –
and one that this case demonstrates – is its ability to create a
good contact. Using amalgam in this particular case would have
made it very difficult to get a good contact, with difficulties in
trying to place, tack and carve amalgam to get a nice rounded
contact. However, with an injection-molding technique utilizing
Filtek Supreme Ultra restorative and a Bioclear matrix, we
were able to achieve a nicely rounded post-op contour.
As shown by all of the points mentioned herein, we must
enter the modern era of dentistry. While there might be arguments
in favor of amalgam, my stance is that traditional
preparations deprive composite of its superior assets. I will
not argue as to whether amalgam is toxic or non-toxic, or
many of the other oft touted advantages of amalgam versus
composite. This is because I believe the more urgent reason
we need to step away from amalgam is that it doesn’t create
tissue outcomes as healthy as a well-done composite, and
because it requires unnecessary mutilation of the teeth.
|