Journal of Clinical Dentistry and Oral Health

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (202) 780-3397

Research Article - Journal of Clinical Dentistry and Oral Health (2023) Volume 7, Issue 2

Most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration in maxillary and mandibular arch

Anjaneyulu*, Santhanam P

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India

*Corresponding Author:
Anjaneyulu
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics
Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences
Saveetha University, Chennai, India
E-mail: kanjaneyulu.sdc@saveetha.com

Received: 28-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. AACDOH-23-88191; Editor assigned: 01-Mar-2023, PreQC No. AACDOH-23-88191 (PQ); Reviewed: 15-Mar-2023, QC No. AACDOH-23-88191 (QC); Revised: 20-Mar-2023, Manuscript No. AACDOH-23-88191 (R); Published: 27-Mar-2023, DOI: 10.35841/aacdoh-7.2.137

Citation: Anjaneyulu, Santhanam P. Most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration in maxillary and mandibular arch. J Clin Dent Oral Health. 2023;7(2):137

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Clinical Dentistry and Oral Health

Abstract

Background: To evaluate most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration. Materials and method: This is a retrospective descriptive study in Chennai population. Our study is an institution based retrospective descriptive study was carried out in between the month of November 2020- February 2021. Data of patients who came with chief complaints of decayed tooth (dental caries) and who had undergone amalgam restoration were included in the study sample. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. Based on statistical analysis results were tabulated. Result: Most of the patient who had amalgam restoration was males (1131) compared to females (969). 278 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar). Around 581 males and 463 female patients had class I amalgam restoration, 279 males and 265 female patients had class II distal amalgam restoration and 271 males and 241 female patients had class II mesial amalgam restoration. Where 153 Male patients and 125 female patients underwent amalgam restoration in 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar). Conclusion: Most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration is 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar) Amalgam restorations have served the profession well and will continue to do so in the years to come. The use of amalgam can be continued as a material of choice if esthetics is not a concern.

Keywords

Amalgam, Restoration, Patients, Esthetics.

Introduction

Dental amalgam is one among the foremost versatile restorative materials which is used in conservative dentistry [1]. It constitutes approximately 75% of all restorative materials employed by dentists all over the world [2,3]. Amalgam served as a dental restoration for quite 165 years. There is still no adequate economic alternative for amalgam [4]. Mixture of amalgam is a reliable long-term performance in load bearing situations and low cost is unmatched by other dental restorative material. Amalgam has multiple advantages like low technique sensitivity, selfsealing property and its longevity [5].

Dental amalgam apparently was first used by the Chinese. Su Kung (659 AD) mentioned the use of a mixture in the Material Medica. In Europe, Johannes stokers, a municipal physician in Ulm, Germany, recommended amalgam as a filling material in 1528. The popularity of amalgam might be attributed to its good mechanical properties, ease of application and the one-appointment treatment [6]. Amalgam has low technical sensitivity and it is believed that metallic ions released by amalgam have anti-cariogenic activity [7]. Despite advancements in resin-based composite technology, amalgam restoration remains a restorative treatment option in many dental practices [8-10]. The use of amalgam bonding agents has become popular in the restoration of posterior teeth and demonstrates many potential advantages, including tooth reinforcement, decreased postoperative sensitivity, better marginal adaptation, decreased microleakage, reduction of secondary caries and a more conservative preparation [11-17].

Amalgam cannot strengthen tooth structure, and is unaesthetic. In addition, cavity preparation for amalgam is difficult and proper insulation is necessary [15]. Present investigation evaluated most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration. Our team has extensive knowledge and research experience that has translate into high quality publications [16-35].

Materials and Methods

Study Setting

This university hospital-based retrospective study was carried out by reviewing the dental records of patients diagnosed with dental caries and underwent amalgam restoration who visited a university teaching hospital in Chennai. Since this was a university hospital setting the large sample size and distribution of population contributed a major advantage for this study. Data collected was reliable and with evidence. The study was conducted after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethical Review Board.

Data Collection

This retrospective descriptive study. For this study we got approval from the Institutional Ethical Review Board (SDC// SIHEC/2020/DIASDATA/0619-0320) and our study was carried in a university hospital setting in a major city of Tamil Nadu, South India. After getting approval Case sheets of 2500 dental OP patients who visited the University Hospital in between the month of November 2020 and February 2021 were considered. In that 25000 around 2100 case sheets of patients with chief complaints decayed tooth (dental caries) and who underwent amalgam restoration were taken into study. Inclusion criteria include patients who underwent for class I, Class II MO, DO, MOD amalgam restoration. Patients who underwent Gic restoration, in lay, onlay, composite restoration were excluded. 2100 case sheets were obtained by filtering those patients who visited the University Hospital with chief complaints of dental caries in oral cavity underwent amalgam restoration in maxillary and mandibular arch were analysed. The collected data were filtered and a case sheet of patients was considered.

Data Analytics

These 2100 data were analysed, even photographs, radiographs in the image gallery of the patient online case sheet records were verified. In order to reduce, minimize and avoid the occurrence errors, verified case sheets were once again cross verified by another examiner. Verified case sheet details were tabulated in excel under columns of age, gender, patient with class I and class II dental caries, maxillary arch and Mandibular arch tooth number in FDI notation, treatment done by dentist to patient. Excel tabulated data is transferred to SPSS software for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics and chi square tests were conducted to evaluate differences between groups with significance level at 95% confidence interval (P<0.05).

Results

Based on analysis results were obtained and tabulated. The percentage distribution of gender of patient who underwent amalgam restoration was shown in Figure 1 where most of the patient who had amalgam restoration was males (1131) compared to females (969). Figure 2 represent frequency distribution of tooth number in fdi notation of patient who had caries and underwent amalgam restoration. Where 278 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar), 254 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 37 (Mandibular left permanent second molar), 197 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 16 (Maxillary right permanent first molar), 188 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 26 (Maxillary left permanent first molar), 178 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 36 (Mandibular left permanent first molar), 172 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 46 (Mandibular right permanent first molar),139 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 36(Mandibular left second premolar), 113 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 45(Mandibular right second premolar), 108 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 25 (Maxillary left second premolar), 108 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 15 (Maxillary right second premolar), 103 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 24 (Maxillary left first premolar), 79 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 14(Maxillary right first premolar), 48 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 27 (Maxillary left permanent second molar), 42 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 17(Maxillary right permanent second molar), 29 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 48 (Mandibular right third molar), 24 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 38 (Mandibular left third molar), 23 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 44 (Mandibular right first premolar) and 17 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 34 (Mandibular left first premolar).

clinical-dentistry-bar-graph

Figure 1: Bar graph representing frequency distribution of gender of patient in the study population. X-axis represents gender and Y-axis represents the number of patients. Most of the patient who had amalgam restoration was males (1131) compared to females (969).

clinical-dentistry-bar-graph

Figure 2: Bar graph representing frequency distribution of tooth number in fdi notation of patient who had caries and underwent amalgam restoration. X-axis represents tooth number in fdi notation and Y-axis represents the number of patients. Where 278 patients underwent amalgam restoration in 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar).

Figure 3 shows association between type of cervical lesion in the study population and gender. Where Around 581 males and 463 female patients had class I amalgam restoration, 279 males and 265 female patients had class II distal amalgam restoration and 271 males and 241 female patients had class II mesial amalgam restoration. Where 153 Male patients and 125 female patients underwent amalgam restoration in 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar) (Figure 4).

clinical-dentistry-bar-graph

Figure 3: Bar graph representing association between type of cervical lesion in the study population and gender. X-axis represents the type of caries and amalgam restoration done in the study population in gender and Y-axis represents the number of patients. Around 581 males and 463 female patients had class I amalgam restoration, 279 males and 265 female patients had class II distal amalgam restoration and 271 males and 241 female patients had class II mesial amalgam restoration.

clinical-dentistry-bar-graph

Figure 4: Bar graph representing frequency distribution of tooth number in fdi notation of patient who had caries and underwent amalgam restoration. X-axis represents gender wise categorisation of frequency distribution of patient’s tooth number in fdi notation for amalgam restoration and Y-axis represents the number of patients. Where 153 Male patients and 125 female patients underwent amalgam restoration in 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar).

Discussion

The performance of dental restorations is influenced by several factors, including the restorative materials used, the clinician’s level of experience, the type of tooth, the tooth position in dental arch, the restoration design, the restoration size, the number of restored surfaces and the patient’s age. Amalgam restorations have a simple technique and are very versatile. For those reasons, most likely amalgam restorations continue to be used very often. The use of amalgam as a restorative material is especially indicated in situations such as presence of extensive caries lesions; posterior teeth, especially those affected by high occlusion forces; difficulties isolating the operative field; sub gingival/dentin preparations, and finally high caries risk patients [36].

Most of the patient who had amalgam restoration was males (1131) compared to females (969). This goes in hand with Enabulele, et al. where there was a male preponderance with males accounting for 59.3% of the study population who underwent restoration. Most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration is 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar). Amalgam restorations could be best restorative material of choice in case of posteriors, non- Esthetics zone, also low technique sensitivity, high longevity, high radiopacity, high compressive strength, excellent wear resistance, appearance easily distinguished from tooth structure and the ability to seal the marginal spaces over time. This study focused on most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration. Our study had few limitations such as it’s a single centered study, subjects were not available for direct examination and we relied on photographs and case sheets of patients.

Conclusion

Most common tooth to be restored with amalgam restoration is 47 (Mandibular right permanent second molar). Amalgam restorations have served the profession well and will continue to do so in the years to come. In terms of longevity, they are probably superior to composite resins, especially when used for large restorations and cusp capping. The new high copper single composition alloys offer superior properties but may not offer as good seal as older amalgams. The use of amalgam can be continued as a material of choice if esthetics is not a concern.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University. We also thank the department of Periodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals for providing insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Author Contributions

Santhanam P designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol, and wrote the first draft manuscript. K Anjaneyulu managed the analyses of the study and the literature searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest is declared in this study.

Source of Funding

The present project is supported by Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University.

References

  1. Kisely S. No mental health without oral health. Canadian J Psychiatry. 2016;61(5):277-82.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Black GV. The technical procedures in filling teeth. Blakely printing Company. 1903.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  5. Bharti R, Wadhwani KK, Tikku AP, et al. Dental amalgam: An update. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(4):204.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Hussain A, Khan FA. History of dentistry. Arch Med Health Sci. 2014;2(1):106.
  8. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Kuhn F, Pieramici DJ. Ocular trauma: Principles and practice. Thieme Medical Pub. 2002.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  11. Hilton TJ, Ferracane JL, Broome JC. Summitt's fundamentals of operative dentistry: A contemporary approach. Batavia, NY, USA: Quintessence Publishing Company Incorporated 2013.
  12. Shen C, Speigel J, Mjör IA. Repair strength of dental amalgams. Oper Dent. 2006;31(1):122-6.
  13. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  14. Berdajs D, Turina M. Operative anatomy of the heart. Springer Science & Business Media. 2011;543.
  15. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  16. Özcan M, Vallittu PK, Huysmans MC, et al. Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006;17:7-13.
  17. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  18. Varga J, Matsumura H, Masuhara E. Bonding of amalgam filling to tooth cavity with adhesive resin. Dent Mater J. 1986;5(2):158-64.
  19. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  20. Setcos JC, Staninec M, Wilson NH. The development of resin-bonding for amalgam restorations. Br Dent J. 1999;186(7):328-32.
  21. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  22. Muniz M, Quioca J, Dolci GS, et al. Bonded amalgam restorations: Microleakage and tensile bond strength evaluation. Oper Dent. 2005;30:228-33.
  23. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  24. Fedorowicz Z, Nasser M, Wilson N. Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;4.
  25. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  26. Saker S. Clinical and radiographic assessment of reasons for replacement of metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses in patients referring to dental school. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(1):e75.
  27. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  28. Muthukrishnan L. Imminent antimicrobial bioink deploying cellulose, alginate, EPS and synthetic polymers for 3D bioprinting of tissue constructs. Carbohy Polym. 2021;260:117774.
  29. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  30. PradeepKumar AR, Shemesh H, Nivedhitha MS, et al. Diagnosis of vertical root fractures by cone-beam computed tomography in root-filled teeth with confirmation by direct visualization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2021;47(8):1198-214.
  31. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  32. Chakraborty T, Jamal RF, Battineni G, et al. A review of prolonged post-COVID-19 symptoms and their implications on dental management. Int J Environ Res. 2021;18(10):5131.
  33. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  34. Muthukrishnan L. Nanotechnology for cleaner leather production: A review. Environ Chem Lett. 2021;19(3):2527-49.
  35. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  36. Teja KV, Ramesh S. Is a filled lateral canal–A sign of superiority?. J Dent Sci. 2020;15(4):562.
  37. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  38. Narendran K, MS N, Sarvanan A. Synthesis, characterization, free radical scavenging and cytotoxic activities of phenylvilangin, a substituted dimer of embelin. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2020;82(5):909-12.
  39. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  40. Reddy P, Krithikadatta J, Srinivasan V, et al. Dental caries profile and associated risk factors among adolescent school children in an urban South-Indian city. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2020;18(1):379-86.
  41. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  42. Sawant K, Pawar AM, Banga KS, et al. Dentinal microcracks after root canal instrumentation using instruments manufactured with different NiTi alloys and the SAF system: A systematic review. Appl Sci. 2021;11(11):4984.
  43. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  44. Bhavikatti SK, Karobari MI, Zainuddin SL, et al. Investigating the antioxidant and cytocompatibility of Mimusops elengi Linn extract over human gingival fibroblast cells. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):7162.
  45. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  46. Karobari MI, Basheer SN, Sayed FR, et al. An in vitro stereomicroscopic evaluation of bioactivity between Neo MTA Plus, Pro Root MTA, BIODENTINE & glass ionomer cement using dye penetration method. Materials. 2021;14(12):3159.
  47. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  48. Rohit Singh T, Ezhilarasan D. Ethanolic extract of Lagerstroemia Speciosa (L.) Pers., induces apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in HepG2 cells. Nutr Cancer. 2020;72(1):146-56.
  49. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  50. Ezhilarasan D. MicroRNA interplay between hepatic stellate cell quiescence and activation. Eur J Pharmacol. 2020;885:173507.
  51. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  52. Romera A, Peredpaya S, Shparyk Y, et al. Bevacizumab biosimilar BEVZ92 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(12):845-55.
  53. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  54. Raj R K. β‐Sitosterol‐assisted silver nanoparticles activates Nrf2 and triggers mitochondrial apoptosis via oxidative stress in human hepatocellular cancer cell line. Biomed Mater Res Part-A. 2020;108(9):1899-908.
  55. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  56. Vijayashree Priyadharsini J. In silico validation of the non‐antibiotic drugs acetaminophen and ibuprofen as antibacterial agents against red complex pathogens. J Periodontol. 2019;90(12):1441-8.
  57. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  58. Priyadharsini JV, Girija AS, Paramasivam A. In silico analysis of virulence genes in an emerging dental pathogen A. baumannii and related species. Arch Oral Biol. 2018;94:93-8.
  59. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  60. Uma Maheswari TN, Nivedhitha MS, Ramani P. Expression profile of salivary micro RNA-21 and 31 in oral potentially malignant disorders. Braz Oral Res. 2020;34.
  61. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  62. Gudipaneni RK, Alam MK, Patil SR, et al. Measurement of the maximum occlusal bite force and its relation to the caries spectrum of first permanent molars in early permanent dentition. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020;44(6):423-8.
  63. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  64. Chaturvedula BB, Muthukrishnan A, Bhuvaraghan A, et al. Dens invaginatus: a review and orthodontic implications. Br Dent J. 2021;230(6):345-50.
  65. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  66. Kanniah P, Radhamani J, Chelliah P, et al. Green synthesis of multifaceted silver nanoparticles using the flower extract of Aerva lanata and evaluation of its biological and environmental applications. ChemistrySelect. 2020;5(7):2322-31.
  67. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  68. Grumezescu A, editor. Nanobiomaterials in dentistry: Applications of nanobiomaterials. William Andrew 2016.
  69. Google Scholar

  70. Enabulele JE, Ehizele AO. Prevalence and pattern of restorations on permanent molar teeth among adult dental patients. Dent Oral Craniofacial Res. 2019;5(2):1-4.
  71. Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App

Vizag Tech Summit