In article <1174849144.084123.20640@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
equesnel@unm.edu wrote:

Interesting responses. I must say that one of the fillings that has
to be redone is a composite filling from around 1992. Sure didn't
last long. I have two amalgam fillings in numbers 14 and 15 that were
done 45 years ago, and they are still intact. There is no decay
around those old amalgam fillings. They have held up better than the
one composite filling I do have.

Eva

I've been wondering if Cerec can be used on cases getting hospital
dentistry (under general anesthesia). I know that it can be very
difficult to find a hospital O.R. that is equipped to do root canal
therapy.

Just curious... calling Cerec-guys ...

Webby

On Mar 25, 5:21 pm, le huart <fritzfi...@comcast.net> wrote:
Miles Markley, anyone?

I'm thinking this has been taken off topic here. Does this have
anything to do with my original question? Just feeling a little
frustrated. Cerec means nothing to me, and neither does Miles
Markley. Hello?

Eva

Miles Markley, R.I.P., was a dentist who could do wonders with amalgam,
using pins, building up broken cusps, etc. Many of his amalgams have
lasted 50+ years.

On Mar 26, 12:56 am, eques...@unm.edu wrote:
On Mar 25, 5:21 pm, le huart <fritzfi...@comcast.net> wrote:

Miles Markley, anyone?

I'm thinking this has been taken off topic here. Does this have
anything to do with my original question? Just feeling a little
frustrated. Cerec means nothing to me, and neither does Miles
Markley. Hello?

Eva

Pay no attention Eva, it's not uncommon for a dental thread to expand
beyond its original concept. Everything you need to know is in the
first few posts. To summarise:

Both materials could do a reasonably good job at restoring your tooth.
Amalgam has mercury and looks ugly, but has "potentially" greater
longevity and is less expensive (usually). Composite looks nicer, but
is more difficult to place and more expensive, the dentist needs to be
relatively experienced in composite use and up to date with current
bonding techniques.

Personally, I would go for the amalgam as I'm not very concerned about
the appearance of posterior teeth, but either choice could work well.

Regards,
George

Pay no attention Eva, it's not uncommon for a dental thread to expand
beyond its original concept. Everything you need to know is in the
first few posts. To summarise:

Both materials could do a reasonably good job at restoring your tooth.
Amalgam has mercury and looks ugly, but has "potentially" greater
longevity and is less expensive (usually). Composite looks nicer, but
is more difficult to place and more expensive, the dentist needs to be
relatively experienced in composite use and up to date with current
bonding techniques.

Personally, I would go for the amalgam as I'm not very concerned about
the appearance of posterior teeth, but either choice could work well.

Regards,
George

Let me enter the debate a tiny bit.

I feel both Amalgam and Posterior Resin are equally difficult to do well.
Both materials do much worse than they are capable of doing, if done poorly.
Amalgam requires better skills at preparing the tooth, creating sufficient
undercut without weakening the tooth, placing pins, etc. Placing the
amalgam into the tooth requires moderate skill. Posterior resin requires
the restoration be packed into the preparation with skill, but allows for
more "slop" in the preparation. The two materials require the practitioner
to be skilled in different areas. Of course, the good dentist will pay
close attention to fine detail and can do both very well.

For most patients,,,,,, the difference between amalgam and resin comes down
to price and color. Post-operative sensitivity may play a small role in the
decision making process, but not that much (IMHO).

Amatus

On Mar 26, 12:09 pm, "Amatus Cremona" <Nic...@sottovocce.com> wrote:

Let me enter the debate a tiny bit.

I feel both Amalgam and Posterior Resin are equally difficult to do well.
Both materials do much worse than they are capable of doing, if done
poorly.
Amalgam requires better skills at preparing the tooth, creating
sufficient
undercut without weakening the tooth, placing pins, etc. Placing the
amalgam into the tooth requires moderate skill. Posterior resin requires
the restoration be packed into the preparation with skill, but allows for
more "slop" in the preparation. The two materials require the
practitioner
to be skilled in different areas. Of course, the good dentist will pay
close attention to fine detail and can do both very well.

For most patients,,,,,, the difference between amalgam and resin comes
down
to price and color. Post-operative sensitivity may play a small role in
the
decision making process, but not that much (IMHO).

Amatus

Well, I guess no matter what job is done on a person's teeth, the
skill of the dentist will be the major factor. I have no sensitivity
in the amalgam fillings that have lasted since forever, so I don't
think that's going to be a problem. This is where I have to take that
"leap of faith" I mentioned before and put my trust in the dentist I
have chosen. Unless he gives me a reason to doubt him, I am going to
trust in him and his skill. Thanks.

Eva

A few points that were not mentioned in the discussion: amalgam
generally leaks more than composite, but the silver and mercury salts
it forms are antibacterial and may protect from recurrence. It also
has a better coefficient of thermal expansion than composite.

Just curious, what's the real difference between an amalgam filling
and a composite one? Is it a matter of quality or appearance? Just
visited my new dentist for a full exam and 2 X-rays. He gave me an
estimate of the work I need done, and he lists 3 amalgam fillings and
3 composite fillings. I have one periodontal pocket that needs
scraping and planing also. I should be done with everything by the
end of May.

Thanks in advance.

Eva