10-YEAR IN-VITRO ASSESSMENT OF THE SURFACE STATUS OF 3 RETROFILLING MATERIALS

Sixty-one maxillary central incisors were collected, cleaned, and divided into six groups of 10 teeth, with one tooth as a control. Half of the teeth were resected with a high-speed bur and half with a slow-speed bur, and prepared for retrofillings. Retrofillings of EBA cement and Ketac cement were placed in 10 teeth, each of the high-speed and slow-speed groups. Similarly, zinc containing amalgam was placed in 10 teeth of the high-speed group, and zinc-free amalgam was placed in 10 teeth in the slow-speed group. A single operator completed all retrofills. They were stored in physiological saline for 10 yr. After that period, the apical portions were photographed at x30 magnification and evaluated by the authors for marginal discrepancies, root crazing, staining, voids, and roughness. Overall, EBA cement and amalgam rated better than Ketac cement in every category except root crazing. perhaps, as some studies have suggested, EBA cement may replace amalgam as the retrofill material of choice.