Bailey J H
Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, Ohio State University, College of Dentistry, Columbus.
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Jan;65(1):71-4. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90052-x.
The use of pins or slots to provide retention for amalgam restorations has been shown to be equally effective by some authors whereas the pin method has been shown to be more effective by others. This study was done to determine whether the different methods would be affected by the outline form of the preparation. One hundred forty melamine teeth were prepared in three outline forms determined by the cusp that was removed: (1) mesiopalatal, (2) mesiopalatal and distobuccal, and (3) mesiopalatal, distobuccal, and mesiobuccal cusps. Each outline form was restored with a uniform volume of hand-condensed amalgam with pin or slot retention and milled to an occlusal angle of 30 degrees. A load was placed on the milled occlusion with a stainless steel ball to the point of fracture with an MTS machine. No significant difference was found between the pin or slot design for the outline forms evaluated.
一些作者表明，使用针或槽来固定汞合金修复体同样有效，而另一些作者则表明针固定法更有效。本研究旨在确定不同方法是否会受到预备外形的影响。通过去除牙尖确定了三种外形，用140颗三聚氰胺牙进行预备：（1）近中腭尖；（2）近中腭尖和远中颊尖；（3）近中腭尖、远中颊尖和近中颊尖。每种外形均用体积一致的手工加压汞合金进行修复，采用针或槽固定，并研磨至30度的咬合角。用不锈钢球在研磨后的咬合面上施加负荷，直至用材料试验系统（MTS）机器使其断裂。在所评估的外形中，针或槽设计之间未发现显著差异。
