Developed from an original question by Rav Jaks: 'What evidence-based research is present which details the most effective lining to be used under amalgam restorations?' Reviewer: Mona Nasser Information Scientist: Helen Nield
Key Points
-
Microleakage: penetration of oral fluids, bacteria and their toxic products at the interface between dental tissue and restorative material.
-
Postoperative sensitivity: an outcome measure in a number of studies for which the definition and measurement methods varies, but which includes pain and thermal sensitivity (sensitivity to cold or hot stimulus).
Abstract
Since August 2009, members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum (www.dentistryresearch.org) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research. The question that receives the most votes each month forms the subject of a critical appraisal of the relevant literature. Each month a new round of voting takes place to decide which further questions will be reviewed. Dental practitioners and dental care professionals are encouraged to take part in the voting and submit their own questions to be included in the vote by joining the website.
The paper below details a summary of the findings of the ninth critical appraisal. In order to address the question raised by dentistry research forum, first a search was conducted for systematic reviews on the topic. There was one systematic review retrieved comparing bonded amalgam restorations versus non-bonded amalgam restorations. However, there was no other systematic review identified assessing the effectiveness of dental liners under amalgam restorations in general. Therefore, a search was conducted for any randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing use of a lining under amalgam restorations versus no lining or RCTs comparing differing lining materials under amalgam against each other. There were eight relevant RCTs identified. Due to the low quality, small sample sizes or lack of adequate reporting of the outcome data, the evidence is inadequate to claim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to answer this question. These RCTs would be preferably included and synthesised in a systematic review.
Background
One of the most widely used dental materials is dental amalgam, made up of mercury and alloy particles. A recognised limitation of dental amalgams compared to other dental materials such as composites,is that they cannot bond to the dental tissue. The gap between dental tissue and amalgam restoration risks attracting a buildup of the waste products of the dental amalgam.1 The microleakage from the tooth and restoration interface has been reported as a potential contributing factor towards some of the problematic symptoms experienced by patients following placement of amalgam restorations, for example postoperative sensitivity.2,3 Therefore, some dentists recommend using liners between the amalgam and dental tissue. In this review, we intend to evaluate the available evidence for the effectiveness of different dental liners placed under amalgam restorations.
Methods
First, a search for systematic reviews was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE)). The details of the search strategy for systematic reviews are available in Appendix 1. We did not find any systematic review that was directly relevant to the question of this rapid assessment. There was one review that was partially relevant and examined the question of whether bonded amalgams are better than non-bonded ones in restoring permanent teeth.1 The authors found one trial with 31 patients (113 restorations) that compared adhesively bonded amalgam restorations (Dycal (LD Caulk) liner; ED primer (Kuraray); Panavia 21TC (Kuraray); Oxyguard II gel (Kuraray); Dispersalloy amalgam (Dentsply)) versus non-bonded amalgam restorations (Dycal (LD Caulk) liner.
A search was then conducted in Medline (OVID) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify any randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing use of a lining under amalgam restorations versus no lining or RCTs comparing differing lining materials under amalgam against each other. We excluded studies that were done on extracted teeth or done on primary teeth. Details of the search strategy are provided in Appendix 2.
Findings
In the one identified systematic review, bonded amalgam restorations (amalgam restorations with dental adhesive) compared to non-bonded amalgam (amalgam restorations without dental adhesive) showed no significant differences in postoperative sensitivity. The authors concluded that the evidence is inadequate to conclusively judge whether bonded amalgam is better than non-bonded.
The searches for primary studies identified 94 results in Medline and 52 results in PubMed. After screening the title and abstracts, there were 20 potentially relevant studies. We excluded one study by Baratieri et al.,4 one study by Gordan et al.5 and those by Gupta et al.,6 Miller et al.7 and Wright et al.8 as it was not clear whether they were RCTs. We also excluded studies by Fanian et al.,9 Lim and McCabe,10 Sandoval et al.11 and Qvist et al.12 as they were conducted on extracted teeth. Finally, we also excluded studies by Shaddy et al.13 and Hucke et al.14 as they were conference abstracts and full access to data and study details was not possible. Eight studies were included. Characteristics of these studies are provided in Table 1.
The studies compared a range of liners against each other or against a control group or bonded amalgam. The outcome measurements were very diverse. The studies were categorised based on the comparison group in Table 1. A summary of the results of the included studies are provided below.
Comparing amalgam restorations with liners and bases versus amalgam restorations with no liners
There were three studies that had relevant comparison groups.15,16,17 It seems that amalgam restoration with copal varnish have less postoperative sensitivity compared to amalgam restorations with no liners. The other comparisons were:
-
1
Amalgam restoration with calcium hydroxide versus amalgam restoration with no liner
-
2
Amalgam restoration with modified glass ionomer liner versus amalgam restoration with no liner
-
3
Amalgam restoration with fluoridated desensitising agent versus no liner.
The other comparisons did not find consistent significant differences. The current data are inadequate to reach a definite conclusion.
Comparing amalgam restorations with different liners and bases against each other
There were six studies with relevant comparison groups.3,17,18,19 Data for the following comparisons were available:
-
Amalgam with glass ionomer liner versus amalgam with copal varnish (three studies)
-
Amalgam with copal varnish versus amalgam with a fluoridated desensitising agent (two studies)
-
Amalgam with glass ionomer and calcium hydroxide (Dycal) versus amalgam with zinc phosphate and calcium hydroxide (Dycal) – Dycal was only used if the cavity was deep (one study)
-
Amalgam with copal varnish versus amalgam restoration with calcium hydroxide (one study)
-
Amalgam with glass ionomer versus amalgam with calcium hydroxide (one study).
The data were limited or inconclusive and the studies are therefore not adequate to detect consistent significant differences.
Comparing amalgam restorations with liners and bases versus bonded amalgam (amalgam with adhesives)
There were five studies that included relevant comparisons.15,16,17,20,21 Data for the following comparisons were available:
-
Amalgam with copal varnish, glass ionomer and calcium hydroxide (Dycal) – Dycal was only used if the cavity was deep – versus bonded amalgam (amalgam with dental adhesive liner) (one study)
-
Amalgam with copal varnish, zinc phosphate cement and calcium hydroxide (Dycal) – Dycal was only used if the cavity was deep – versus bonded smalgam (amalgam with dental adhesive liner) and calcium hydroxide (Dycal) – Dycal was only used if the cavity was deep (one study)
-
Amalgam with copal varnish versus bonded amalgam (amalgam with dental adhesive liner) (three studies)
-
Amalgam with a fluoridated desensitising agent versus bonded amalgam (amalgam with dental adhesive liner) (one study)
-
Amalgam with glass ionomer liner versus bonded amalgam (amalgam with dental adhesive liner) (two studies)
-
Amalgam restoration with calcium hydroxide versus bonded amalgam (one study).
The data were limited or inconclusive and the studies were of low quality or were of small sample sizes, making it difficult to detect consistent significant differences. The current evidence can not demonstrate whether one of the dental liners is better than bonded amalgam in reducing postoperative sensitivity.
Summary
In conclusion, the current studies are inadequate to claim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners. The reasons are the low quality of studies, small sample sizes, and inadequate reporting of the outcome data. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to answer this question. These RCTs would be preferably included and synthesised in a systematic review.
References
Fedorowicz Z, Nasser M, Wilson N . Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (4): CD007517.
Schedle A, Ortengren U, Eidler N, Gabauer M, Hensten A . Do adverse effects of dental materials exist? What are the consequences, and how can they be diagnosed and treated? Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18 (Suppl 3): 232–256. Erratum in Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 326–328.
Schwartz R S, Conn L J Jr, Haveman C W . Clinical evaluation of two fluoridated desensitizing agents for use under class 5 silver amalgam restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 269–273.
Baratieri L N, Machado A, Van Noort R, Ritter A V, Baratieri N M . Effect of pulp protection technique on the clinical performance of amalgam restorations: three-year results. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 319–324.
Gordan V V, Mjör I A, Moorhead J E . Amalgam restorations: postoperative sensitivity as a function of liner treatment and cavity depth. Oper Dent 1999; 24: 377–383.
Gupta M, Pandit I K, Srivastava N, Gugnani N . Comparative evaluation of 2% sodium fluoride iontophoresis and other cavity liners beneath silver amalgam restorations. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010; 28: 68–72.
Miller B C, Charbeneau G T . Sensitivity of teeth with and without cement bases under amalgam restorations: a clinical study. Oper Dent 1984; 9: 130–135.
Wright W, Mazer R B, Teixeira L C, Leinfelder K F . Clinical microleakage evaluation of a cavity varnish. Am J Dent 1992; 5: 263–265.
Fanian F, Hadavi F, Asgar K . Marginal leakage of dental amalgams: effect of cavity varnish and burnishing. J Can Dent Assoc 1984; 50: 484–487.
Lim M Y, McCabe J F . Lining materials for amalgam restorations. Br Dent J 1982; 152: 313–315.
Sandoval V A, Cooley R L, Barnwell S E . Evaluation of potassium oxalate as a cavity liner. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 283–287.
Qvist J, Qvist V, Lambjerg-Hansen H. Bacteria in cavities beneath intermediary base materials. Scand J Dent Res 1977; 85: 313–319.
Shaddy R S, Murdoch C M, Tamisiea P E, Cavel W T, Latta M A . Clinical evaluation of liners vs. no liner under silver amalgams. (AADR Abstract Annual Meeting March 7–10 2001). J Dent Res 2001; 80 (1 Spec Iss).
Hucke R D, Mjor I A, Martini C, Smith G E . Effect of resin liners on post-operative sensitivity of amalgam restorations. (IADR Abstract 1996). J Dent Res 1996; 75 (Spec Iss).
Al-Omari W M, Al-Omari Q D, Omar R . Effect of cavity disinfection on postoperative sensitivity associated with amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 165–170.
Gordan V V, Mjör I A, Hucke R D, Smith G E . Effect of different liner treatments on postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int 1999; 30: 55–59.
Hajizadeh H, Akbari M, Ghavamnasiri M, Abedini S . Clinical evaluation of a resin-based fluoridated desensitizing agent and a self-etching adhesive on the reduction of postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9: 9–16.
Kennington L B, Davis R D, Murchison D F, Langenderfer W R . Short-term clinical evaluation of post-operative sensitivity with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent 1998; 11: 177–180.
Scherer W, Cooper H, Kaim J, Hittleman E, Staffa J . Sensitivity study in vivo: glass-ionomer versus zinc-phosphate bases beneath amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 1990; 15: 193–196.
Browning W D, Johnson W W, Gregory P N . Postoperative pain following bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 1997; 22: 66–71.
Browning W D, Johnson W W, Gregory P N . Reduction of postoperative pain: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 1661–1667.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nasser, M. Evidence summary: which dental liners under amalgam restorations are more effective in reducing postoperative sensitivity?. Br Dent J 210, 533–537 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.461
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.461
This article is cited by
-
Reflections from undergraduate teaching experiences: some problems and solutions of restoring teeth with dental resin composite instead of dental amalgam
British Dental Journal (2022)
-
Bids invited for primary care research funding
British Dental Journal (2011)
-
Evidenced by experience
British Dental Journal (2011)