Amalgambond Plus Research Articles

The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage.
 Methodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n=21), and class I cavities were created on the surface of each tooth. The first was a control group to which no adhesive system was applied. Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven Germany) was applied to Group II, Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group III, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group IV, Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA) was applied to Group V, and then amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, California USA) restorations were placed. After the polishing process, samples were subjected to thermocycling 1,000 times. Teeth were sectioned bucco-palatinally/lingually, and microleakage scores of the occlusal walls were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification by a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 4. One tooth was selected randomly from each group for SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), and SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd., Cambridge UK) photographs of amalgam-tooth hard tissue interfaces were also taken at different magnifications. The results of the microleakage tests were statistically analyzed by both the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann Whitney U Test.
 Results: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p<0.05). Microleakage within the control group was determined to be the highest, and statistically important differences were observed between the other groups. Group V (Amalgambond Plus) was determined to have the lowest microleakage scores.
 Conclusion: In prepared class I cavities, amalgam adhesive systems are effective in preventing occlusal microleakage but do not completely blocked it.
 
 How to cite this article: Ünal M, Atakul F. The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations. Int Dent Res 2021;11(2):83-92. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5
 
 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

A Systematic Review of Amalgam Bonded Restorations: In vitro and Clinical Findings

This article aims to systematically review the evidence reporting on physical properties of bonded amalgam, its clinical performance, and implications. An electronic search in "Medline" (search term: Amalgam and Dentin bonding) from 1987 to 2013 yielded 465 publications out of which 170 articles were selected for the analysis. Data were extracted relating to the bond strength of amalgam to dentin, microleakage, postoperative sensitivity, and longevity of bonded amalgam restorations. A total of 129 in vitro studies out of 170 articles showed high bond strengths with filled adhesive resins and light-cured adhesives, in particular Amalgambond plus and Optibond adhe-sives. Thickness of bonding agent, type of alloy, and thermo-cycling showed inconclusive outcomes between bonded and nonbonded amalgam restorations. Majority of studies reported reduced microleakage when dentin bonding agents and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RM-GICs) were used with amalgam. However, water stored, thermocycled, and spherical amalgam alloys resulted in higher microleakage. While bonded amalgam facilitated the retention of large restorations, reduction in postoperative sensitivity was not consistently observed between bonded and nonbonded amalgam restorations. While bonded amalgam restorations reduce the need for mechanical retention conserving tooth structure and reducing the adverse effects of microleakage, there is lack of consistent evidence across all outcome domains to advocate the benefit of bonding of all amalgam restorations. Despite this, it can be considered the material of choice for large restorations and bonding enhances retention in vitro which can be considered beneficial clinically. The use of adhesives to bond amalgam to the tooth structure offers potential advantages, as it helps in conservative cavity preparation without compromising the retention to tooth, making it a material of choice in large posterior restorations.

The influence of long term water immersion on shear bond strength of amalgam repaired by resin composite and mediated by adhesives or resin modified glass ionomers

ObjectiveTo assess the shear bond strength between amalgam and resin composite mediated by either multipurpose adhesive systems or RMGI when subjected to long term immersion in saline. MethodsPart I: Cylindrical specimens (6mm×6mm) composed of equal parts of sandblasted set amalgam (Oralloy) and composite (Z-100), with a thin layer of either Scotchbond Multipurpose, All Bond 2, Amalgam Bond Plus, High Q Bond Plus or Vitrebond in between were fabricated (n=100×5). Each group was divided into 3 subgroups, immersed in saline at 37°C for either 48h, 3 or 6months, followed by thermocycling (5000; 5/55°C) and shear bond strength testing (SBS). Part II: Identical specimens were fabricated with intermediary of either Ketac Cem, Fuji Lining LC, Rely X Luting, Fuji Plus or Meron Plus (n=100×5). Immersion periods, followed by thermocycling and SBS testing as in Part I.Two representative specimens from each subgroup were sectioned and inspected under SEM. ResultsThe two classes of intermediary agents yielded SBS which differed mainly in the 6months incubation period. While multipurpose adhesives provided SBS values of ∼9–10MPa RMGI provided higher SBS of ∼16MPa. All Bond 2 and Amalgam Bond Plus exhibited deterioration of SBS during the 6month period as well as Rely X Luting. Gap sizes between 0.5 and 3μm exist between all intermediaries and the amalgam; on the other hand all intermediaries exhibit gap-free interfaces between the adhesives/RMGI and the composite. ConclusionsVitrebond in particular and RMGIs in general can serve as an excellent coupler of resin composite to amalgam, providing a durable bond.

The effect of surface conditioning on the bond strength of resin composite to amalgam

ObjectivesThis study evaluated the effect of different surface conditioning methods on the tensile bond strength (TBS) and integrity of the amalgam–resin composite interface, using commercially available restoration repair systems. MethodsOne hundred and sixty Gamma 2 amalgam specimens were stored in artificial saliva for 2 weeks and then randomly assigned to one of the following conditioning groups (n=20/group): Group 1: air abrasion, alloy primer and ‘Panavia 21’, Group 2: air abrasion and ‘Amalgambond Plus’, Group 3: air abrasion and ‘All-Bond 3’, Group 4: diamond bur, alloy primer and ‘Panavia 21’, Group 5: diamond bur and ‘Amalgambond Plus’, Group 6: diamond bur and ‘All-Bond 3’, Group 7: silica coating technique, and Group 8: non-conditioned amalgam surfaces (control group). Subsequently, resin composite material was added to the substrate surfaces and the amalgam–resin composite specimens were subjected to TBS testing. Representative samples from the test groups were subjected to scanning electron microscopy and surface profilometry. The data was analysed statistically with one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's tests (α=0.05). ResultsThe mean TBS of amalgam–resin composite ranged between 1.34 and 5.13MPa and varied with the degree of amalgam surface roughness and the type of conditioning technique employed. Significantly highest TBS values (5.13±0.96MPa) were obtained in Group 1 (p=0.013). ConclusionUnder the tested conditions, significantly greater tensile bond strength of resin composite to amalgam was achieved when the substrate surface was conditioned by air abrasion followed by the application of the Panavia 21 adhesive system. Clinical significanceEffecting a repair of an amalgam restoration with resin composite via the use of air abrasion and application of Panavia 21 would seem to enhance the integrity of the amalgam–resin composite interface. Clinical trials involving the implementation of this technique are indicated to determine the usefulness of this technique.

Clinical Evaluation of Bonded Amalgam Restorations in Endodontically Treated Premolar Teeth: A One-Year Evaluation

The aim of this clinical study was to compare the fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and rate of recurrent caries of bonded and nonbonded amalgam restorations in endodontically treated premolar teeth. A total of 36 patients with endodontically treated maxillary first or second premolars were selected and divided into three groups. The treatments in all groups consisted of lingual cusp coverage and cementation of a prefabricated intracanal post (No. 2 long, Dentatus USA, New York, NY, USA). One type of cavity liner was used for each group as follows: copal varnish (Group A), Amalgambond Plus (Group B), and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (Group C). The teeth were then restored with Cinalux high-copper spherical amalgam (Cinalux, Sh. Dr Faghihi Dental Co., Tehran, Iran). After one year, fracture resistance, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries were evaluated. Fischer's exact test was used for statistical analysis using a 0.05 percent significance level. There was no significant difference among groups with respect to fracture resistance (p=0.49). However, significant differences in marginal adaptation existed among the three groups (p=0.02) and no recurrent caries were found in any of the restored teeth. Bonding amalgam restorations using Amalgambond Plus and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus did not improve the fracture resistance or affect the resistance to secondary caries in endodontically treated premolar teeth. However, the teeth in both these bonded groups showed significant improvement in marginal adaptation compared with restorations placed with copal varnish (p=0.02). Amalgambond Plus or Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive resins significantly improved marginal adaptation of amalgam compared with copal varnish, but did not enhance fracture resistance or affect the prevention of secondary caries.

Fracture Resistance of Extensive Amalgam Restorations Retained by Pins, Amalgapins and Amalgam Bonding Agents

This in-vitro study compared the resistance of extensive amalgam restorations retained by either four Regular TMS Link Plus pins, four amalgapins, Amalgambond Plus, Amalgambond Plus with HPA, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus, PQ Amalgam, Panavia F 2.0, All-Bond 2 or Resinomer. Ninety caries-free third molars were embedded in acrylic resin and their occlusal surfaces reduced to within 2 mm of their CEJ. Tytin amalgam alloy was hand-condensed into copper band matrices reinforced with modeling compound after placement of mechanical retention or application of the amalgam bonding agents. Modeling compound and copper bands were removed after 24 hours, and the restorations were adjusted to produce specimens 5 mm in height with a 1 mm bevel on the occlusal-axial surface. The specimens were stored in 100% humidity for one month followed by immersion in de-ionized water for 24 hours at 37 degrees C. The specimens were loaded in compression at a 45 degrees angle in an Instron Universal Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 0.02 inches/minute. The mean failure loads and standard deviations recorded in Newtons were as follows: Amalgambond Plus with HPA 2160N (380), Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus 1900N (380), four Amalgapins 1770N (340), PQAmalgam 1660N (270), Panavia F 2.0 1620N (440), Amalgambond Plus 1570N (390), four Regular TMS Link Plus Pins 1325N (406), All-Bond 2 1300N (390) and Resinomer 1245N (310). A one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc analysis indicated all amalgam bonding agents were statistically equal to either four Regular TMS Link Plus pins orfour amalgapins.

Diffusion‐induced water movement within resin–dentin bonds during bonding

It is thought that water-filled channels and nanovoids in resin-dentin bonds represent potential sites for degradation of bonds or hydrolysis of collagen or both. How water gains access to bonded interfaces is not clear. This study evaluated the diffusion-induced water uptake through resin-dentin interfaces during bonding. Two light-cured total-etch adhesive systems (Excite and One-Step Plus) and a chemical-cured adhesive (Amalgambond Plus) were used in this study. Dentin disks were placed in a split-chamber device, and the fluid movement across dentin was measured, with and without a physiological pressure, during bonding procedures and 24 h after bonding. For light-cured adhesives in the experimental groups, a 6 min interval of dark storage was conducted prior to light-curing, to evaluate the diffusion of water through the uncured resin monomers, and to test the effect of prolonged infiltration time of adhesives on water permeability of bonds. Prolonged adhesive infiltration reduced the water permeability of resin-dentin bonds for light-cured adhesives. Water gradients produced by bonding systems contribute to water movement across the dentin-adhesive interfaces during bonding procedures. Differences in chemical formulations for adhesive systems may lead to differences in the extent of diffusion-induced water movement and the amount of water within the resin-dentin bonds.

Microleakage study of three adhesive systems

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the efficacy of three hydrophilic dentin adhesive systems to reduce class II restoration microleakage. A total of 60 human molar teeth were used in which two box cavities were made on the distal and mesial surfaces, with a cervical margin in dentin. These cavities were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 40 each), according to adhesive system tested: G1: OptiBond SOLO; G2: Amalgambond Plus; G3: Etch & Prime 3.0. The cavities were restored with the composite resin Z-100. The groups were thermocycled 2000 times (5 +/- 1 degrees C and 55 +/- 1 degrees C) with a dwell time of 1 min. The teeth were then immersed in 2% methylene blue, pH 7.0, for 4 h, sectioned and observed with a stereomicroscope MEIJI 2000 (35X). The evaluation was made using scores (0-4) and the results were expressed through the sum of the ranks. G1 = 1994.00; G2 = 2294.00; G3 = 2972.00. The three groups were significantly different. The self-etching adhesive system Etch & Prime 3.0 was less effective in preventing microleakage. The OptiBond SOLO adhesive was the most effective in reducing microleakage in dentin margins when compared with Amalgambond Plus and Etch & Prime 3.0.

Effect of Prolonged Water Storage and Repeated Thermocycling on the Reinforcing Ability of Refrigerated Amalgambond Plus/High Performance Additive in Third Molars with Large Mesio-occlusodistal Amalgam Restorations

This in vitro investigation examined what effect prolonged water immersion and repeated thermocycling had on the fracture strength of extracted third molars restored with refrigerated Amalgambond Plus with High Performance Additive (AB+/HPA) and Tytin amalgam. Mesio-occlusodistal (MOD) channels were prepared in one member from each of 19 contralateral pairs. After restoration, specimens were stored in water for 6 months, with thermocycling repeated every 2 months. Specimens were fractured in a universal testing machine, and the data were analyzed. Secondary effects of tooth location and tooth size were also examined. Fracture strengths of prepared/restored teeth were not statistically different from those of intact contralateral pairs (p > 0.05). Maxillary teeth had lower fracture strengths than mandibular teeth, and tooth size had no effect on fracture strength. Extracted molars with large MOD amalgam restorations bonded with refrigerated AB+/HPA had fracture strengths equivalent to those of intact contralateral pairs after 6 months of water storage and repeated thermocycling.

Tensile bond strength of adhesive systems--effects of primer and thermocycling.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of primer and thermocycling on the bond strength of multi-purpose adhesive systems applied to enamel, under tensile stress. The following bonding systems were applied, according to the manufacturers' instructions, on unground enamel buccal surfaces of 96 premolars, with or without the application of primer: Scotchbond MP, OptiBond FL, Amalgambond Plus and OptiBond (dual-cure). A composite resin (Z100, 3M) was applied and light-cured in a cast metal hollow cone, which was previously fixed to the enamel surfaces. Half of the sample was subjected to 3,000 thermocycles (5-37 degrees C; 37-55 degrees C, dwell time of 60 s), and the other half was stored in water at 37 degrees C for the same period. The data were treated by means of ANOVA and no significant effects were detected, which indicates that tensile bond strength was not affected by the adhesive systems, application of primer or thermocycling.

Shear bond strength of an autopolymerizing core buildup composite bonded to dentin with 9 dentin adhesive systems

Statement of Problem. Clinicians have reported unexpected debonding of autopolymerizing composite core buildups. It has been postulated that dentin adhesive systems that incorporate a combined primer-adhesive may be incompatible with autopolymerizing composites. If so, large numbers of existing restorations may be predestined for early failure. Purpose. This in vitro investigation examined the shear bond strength values of an autopolymerizing core buildup composite bonded to dentin with 9 dentin adhesive systems. Material and Methods. Cylinders of the core buildup composite (2.38-mm diameter) were bonded to moist dentin according to the manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were stored in 37°C water for 1 week, thermocycled (5°C to 55°C, 30-second intervals, 1000 cycles), and returned to water storage overnight. Specimens then were debonded with a universal testing machine at 1.0 mm/min, with results recorded in megapascals. Data were statistically analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test, with pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests used to determine significant (P<.05) differences between groups. Results. The dentin adhesive systems in order of decreasing median bond strength were Optibond FL > One Step, All-Bond 2, Clearfil SE, Amalgambond Plus > Single Bond, Optibond Solo Plus, Tenure > Scotchbond MP. Conclusion. No predictable relationship was found between the general formulation of the dentin adhesive agents and shear bond strength values. Material incompatibilities were judged to be dependent on formulation. (J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:620-3.)

Bonding amalgam to enamel: Shear bond strength and SEM morphology

Statement of Problem. Most studies of amalgam bonding have used dentin as the substrate. There is little data on bonding to enamel. Purpose. This study evaluated the shear bond strength of amalgam to enamel with the use of 3 resin cements, 1 resin-modified glass ionomer lining cement, and 2 dentin bonding agents. Material and Methods. Sixty bovine teeth were trimmed to expose a flat enamel surface and randomly assigned to 6 test groups of 10 specimens each. A single-plane lap shear test assembly was used. The enamel surfaces were treated with either Amalgambond Plus (group I, control), 2 coats of Amalgambond Plus (group II), light-polymerized Panavia F followed by an additional coat of autopolymerized Panavia F (group III), light-polymerized Fuji Lining LC followed by an additional coat of acid-base set Fuji Lining LC (group IV), Clearfil SE Bond followed by an additional coat of autopolymerized Panavia F (group V), or Single Bond followed by an additional coat of autopolymerized RelyX ARC (group VI). Freshly mixed amalgam was condensed against the treated enamel surfaces. Shear bond strengths for each group were compared with 1-way ANOVA and post hoc Duncan's test (P=.05). Fracture modes were examined visually. SEM observations of the fractured enamel surfaces, interfacial morphology, and conditioned enamel surfaces for each group were performed. Results. Low bond strengths of 1.2 and 1.6 MPa were obtained in groups VI and I, respectively. The dual application of materials in all remaining groups resulted in higher bond strengths that ranged from 14.2 to 15.7 MPa. SEM illustrations revealed various degrees of intermingling between the adhesive material and amalgam. The conditioned enamel surfaces were morphologically varied according to conditioning solution. Conclusion. In this in vitro study, with the exception of group VI, the dual application of either adhesive resins or resin-modified glass ionomer resulted in satisfactory bond strengths of amalgam to enamel (up to 16 MPa). (J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:297-303.)

REDUCTION OF POSTOPERATIVE PAIN: A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

The authors investigated the capability of two commonly used basing techniques to reduce postoperative sensitivity. The authors measured the time it took the subjects to respond to a standardized stimulus of cold water (cold response measure, or CRM) at baseline and one week after treatment. The authors found no significant reduction in the mean CRM for the group receiving Amalgambond Plus (Parkell), but they did find a significant decrease in the mean CRM for the group receiving Copalite (Harry J. Bosworth Co.) with or without Vitrebond (3M). The authors concluded that the subjects in the Amalgambond Plus group experienced no more sensitivity to cold at one week postoperative than they did at baseline, while the subjects in the Copalite/Vitrebond group did.

Strengths of modified amalgam-to-dentin interphases.

Amalgam remains the primary dental restorative for nearly 200,000,000 Indonesians. Ground occlusal dentin surfaces of 140 formaldehyde-treated human molars were used to study shear strengths of different adhesive bonds (40: Syntac/Variolink, 40: Amalgambond Plus (AP), 40: AP+microfibre, and 20: Amalcoden) to a spherical high-copper amalgam (Valiant, Ivoclar NA). After 24 h at 37 degrees C/100 RH, restorations were stored for 7 d under one of four different conditions (all 37 degrees C) : A, 100% RH; B, deionized water; C, 0.9% NaCl solution; D, saliva electrolyte solution. Amalcoden-treated samples were exposed to conditions A and B only. ANOVA and Tukey post hoc analysis (P<0.05) were applied. For any single storage condition, AP+microfibre bond strengths were significantly greater than those for other agents tested. Storage condition was a significant variable only for the AP+microfibre; weaker bond strengths were observed for saline-stored samples. Improvement of restorative-to-dentin interfaces, eliminating pulp sensitivity, can result from aldehyde pre-treatment of teeth, as well as from the use of microfibre-filled Amalgambond Plus. These results illustrate the importance of "stabilization" of the entire interphase.

Shear bond strengths of two commercially available dentine-amalgam bonding systems

Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the shear bond strengths (SBS) of amalgam to dentine treated with the Amalgambond Plus System (AM) and All-bond 2 System (AL) after storage periods in physiological saline for up to 48 weeks. Methods: The occlusal superficial dentine surfaces of 150 extracted human molars were exposed by wet grinding on 600-grit silicon carbide and the bonding area demarcated with a perforated adhesive tape. Freshly mixed Tytin amalgam was transferred to the opening in a split Teflon mold on the demarcated dentine surfaces treated with either AM or AL as directed by the manufacturers. The SBS of AM after 24 h (A), 4 weeks (B), 12 weeks (C), 24 weeks (D), and 48 weeks (E), and of AL after 24 h (F), 4 weeks (G), 12 weeks (H), 24 weeks (I), and 48 weeks (J), were determined with a knife-edged rod at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and expressed in megapascal (MPa). The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Student's t-test. Results: The mean ±SD of SBS in MPa were: A: 14.6 ± 4.0; B: 14.5 ± 3.6; C: 15.3 ± 4.8; D: 14.6 ± 4.6; E: 13.9 ± 4.0; F: 9.5 + 4.7; G: 12.1 ± 1.7; H: 10.2 ± 3.5; I: 12.0 ± 3.9; J: 11.9 ± 3.5. The SBS of the five groups treated with AM (A, B, C, D and E) were not significantly different ( P > 0.05) and the SBS of the five groups treated with AL (F, G, H, I and J) were not significantly different ( P > 0.05). The SBS of A vs. F, B vs. G, ad C vs. H, were significantly different ( P < 0.05), but D vs. I and E vs. J were not significantly different ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: The SBS of amalgam to dentine treated with AM and AL were not adversely affected by the duration of storage.

Long-term durability of adhesive systems bonded to fresh amalgam

A strong durable resin bond to fresh amlgam is desired in composite-veneered amalgam restorations and in adhesive amalgam restorations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of long-term water storage on the durability of the shear bond strength of new adhesive systems bonded to fresh amalgam. Sixty cylindrical specimens composed of equal parts of amalgam and composite, with a layer of bonding material in between, were prepared for each adhesive system: All-Bond 2, Amalgambond Plus, High-Q-Bond, and Comspan. Specimens were divided into three subgroups and immersed in saline at 37°C for either 48 hours, 3 months, or 6 months. After the immersion period, specimens were thermocycled and subjected to shear bond strength testing. Shear bond strength of Comspan and High-Q-Bond adhesives did not deteriorate significantly during the 6-month experiment and maintained a mostly mixed mode of failure. All-Bond 2 and Amalgambond Plus adhesives exhibited deterioration of the shear bond strength as a function of immersion time and shifted from dominantly mixed mode of failure to totally adhesive (All-Bond 2) or mostly adhesive failure (Amalgambond Plus). Incubation in saline for long periods should be a standard test in evaluating the bond of new adhesive systems to fresh amalgam, whereas short exposure time to water might be misleading.

Comparing the Resistance of Dentin Bonding Agents and Pins in Amalgam Restorations

This in vitro study involving 84 caries-free molar specimens examined the resistance of complex amalgam restorations retained by two dentin bonding agents--Amalgambond and Amalgambond Plus--four regular TMS pins, six regular TMS pins and four pins in conjunction with Amalgambond. Analysis indicated that the Amalgambond restorations were significantly weaker than the other types. Amalgambond Plus restorations were significantly stronger than the Amalgambond restorations but not different from the remaining groups. The authors concluded that complex amalgam restorations should be retained with a combination of adhesive and mechanical retention.

Bonding amalgam to dentin by different methods

The shear bond strengths of amalgam to dentin by use of (1) All-Bond-2 adhesive, (2) Amalgambond Plus adhesive and (3) TMS Minim pins were compared in this study. Forty-five sound human molars were mounted in acrylic resin and randomly assigned to one of the three groups. The occlusal surfaces were ground to expose the dentin, which was then wet-polished with 600-grit sand paper. All materials were applied according to manufacturer's instructions. A split die with a 5 mm opening was placed and amalgam was condensed, which created an amalgam cylinder bonded/retained to the dentin surface. A shear bond force was applied to the base of the amalgam cylinder. The data were analyzed with analysis of variance and Scheffé's test at the 95% level. All systems were found to promote adhesion/retention of amalgam to dentin. The All-Bond 2 group showed significantly higher bond strength (11.106 ± 3.585 MPa) than Amalgambond Plus (6.343 ± 3.564 MPa) and TMS pin (6.868 ± 0.794 MPa) ( p < 0.05).