Research abstract
British Dental Journal 198, 355 - 359 (2005)
Published online: 26 March 2005 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4812175
A 3-year longitudinal, controlled clinical study of a gallium-based restorative material
S M Dunne1, R Abraham2 & C L Pankhurst3
- Galloy restorations in moderate to large class I and class II cavities displayed early catastrophic failure that resulted in fractured tooth structure in 60% of cases.
- Galloy restorations demonstrate dimensional instability and marked corrosion in the presence or oral fluids even when placed using procedures designed to reduce moisture contamination.
- Due to its inferior clinical performance, Galloy is unsuitable as a restorative material for use in moderate to large class I and class II restorations.
Abstract
Aim The aim of this three-year longitudinal controlled study was to compare the clinical performance of Galloy1 versus a high copper, mercury based Dispersalloy2 filling material.
Methods Moderate to large class I and class II cavities or replacement restorations were selected and 25 Galloy® restorations and 25 Dispersalloy controls were placed in 14 adult patients by a single operator. Restorations were photographed and a silicone impression recorded at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years.
Results At 3 years all 22 Dispersalloy restorations but only 4 Galloy restorations were still in situ. Three Dispersalloy restorations were lost to follow–up. Tooth fracture was observed in 15 (60%) of the Galloy restorations by the end of the 3 years, compared to one (4%) Dispersalloy restoration, which failed due to tooth fracture. A further six Galloy restorations had to be removed due to complaints of persistent pain. Four teeth restored with Galloy required endodontic treatment but none of the Dispersalloy restored teeth required endodontics. Of the four Galloy restorations remaining in situ, three were relatively small restorations and the fourth a moderate sized restoration required a marginal repair.
Conclusion The clinical performance of Galloy restorations was so grossly inferior to the Dispersalloy controls that Galloy cannot be recommended for clinical use in moderate to large or multi-surface cavities.
- Professor, Guy's, King's, St Thomas (GKT) Dental Institute, King's College London
- Senior Specialist Clinical Tutor, Department of Primary Dental Care, Guy's, King's, St Thomas (GKT) Dental Institute, King's College London
- Lecturer, Unit of Distance Education, Guy's, King's, St Thomas (GKT) Dental Institute, King's College London
Correspondence to: S M Dunne1
Department of Primary Dental Care, GKT London Dental Institute, Denmark Hill Campus, Caldecot Road, London SE5 9RW United Kingdom
e-mail: s.dunne@kcl.ac.uk