Gallium alloy versus high copper amalgam: A comparative evaluation of corrosion resistance and microleakage in the primary teeth

Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 315-319

  Munshi, A K ^a,b   Hegde, Amitha M ^a   Bhaskar, Sajith ^a  

^a A B SHETTY MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES   (India)

^b NONE   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DENTAL ALLOY; GALLIUM; GALLOY;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORROSION; DECIDUOUS TOOTH; DENTAL SURGERY; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; PRESCHOOL CHILD; TOOTH DISEASE;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CORROSION; DENTAL ALLOYS; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL LEAKAGE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FEMALE; GALLIUM; HUMANS; MALE; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); MOLAR; TOOTH, DECIDUOUS;

EID: 0034208756     PISSN: 10534628     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.24.4.968112r9pr8833g5     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Osborne JW, Summitt VB. Mechanical properties and clinical performance of a gallium restorative material. Operative Dentistry 20: 241-245, 1995.
2. Kaga M, Nakajima H, Sakai T, Oguchi H. Gallium alloy restorations in primary teeth. A 12 month study. J Am Dent Assoc 127: 1195-1200, 1996.
3. Osborne JW, Norman RD. 13 year clinical assessment of 10 amalgam alloys. Dent Mater 6: 189-194, 1990.
4. Blair FM, Whitworth JM, McCabe JF. The physical properties of a gallium alloy restorative material. Dent Mater. 11: 277-280, 1995.
5. Psarras V, Wennberg A, Dorand T. Cytotoxicity of corroded gallium and dental amalgam alloys. Acta Odontol Scand 50: 31-36, 1992.
6. Smith DL, Caul HJ, Sweeney WT. Some physical properties of gallium. Copper tin alloy. J Am Dent Assoc 53: 677-685, 1956.
7. Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Bonding of amalgam and a gallium alloy to bovine dentin. Operative Dentistry 23: 195-202, 1998.
8. Motokawa W, et al. Studies on biological evaluation of gallium alloy I. Pulp irritation in primary teeth. J Fukuoka Dent Coll 14: 249-257, 1987.
9. Dilley DC, Vann WF Jr, Oldenburg TR, Crisp RM. Time required for replacement of composite versus amalgam restorations. J Dent Child 57: 177-183, 1990.
10. Duperon DF, Nevile MD, Kassloff Z. Clinical evaluation of corrosion resistance of conventional alloy, spherical particle alloy and dispersion phase alloy. J Prosth Dent 25: 650-656, 1971.
11. Ravindar P, Amitha H, Munshi AK. Laser and light cured composite resin restorations. In-vitro comparison of isotope and dye penetrations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 20: 213-218, 1996.
12. Kim HW. The clinical observation of gallium alloys as a new dental restorative material for primary teeth. J Fukuoka Dent Coll 14: 395-400, 1988.
13. Navarro MFL, Franco EB, Bastos PAM, Carvaiho RM, Teixeira LC. Clinical evaluation of gallium alloy as a posterior restorative material. Quintessence Int 27: 315-320, 1996.
14. Berglund A, Zhao L, Yamashita Y, Guo IV, Nakajima H, Okabe T. Dimensional changes during setting of three gallium alloys. J Dent Res AADR 74 (Abst 738): 104, 1995.
15. Winkler M, Moore K, Rhodes B, Swartz M. Gallium amalgam versus mercury amalgam: microleakage and retention. Indiana Univ Dent Sch (Research file), Oct. 1995.