Journal of AdvancedMedical and Dental Sciences Research

Background: The intense development of adhesive restorative materials and patients preferences for esthetic restorations prompt clinicians to use alternative restorative materials for molars. Amalgam, however, is the choice of material when it comes to occlusal stress bearing areas, either in primary or permanent molars. To overcome the drawbacks of amalgam and restorative adhesive alternative restorative materials are used and comparison is done between various restorative materials. Aims: To evaluate microleakage and fracture resistance of various restorative materials in Class-1 cavities. Material and Methods: An in vitro study on 60 caries-free molars were randomly divided into two equal groups for the evaluation of microleakage and fracture resistance. Class I cavities for microleakage and fracture resistance study prepared on 60 samples and randomly divided into three equal groups. Group I received composite resins, Group II received bonded amalgam, and Group III received high copper amalgam. The microleakage was viewed under a stereomicroscope. The fracture resistance was evaluated using a universal testing machine. Results: Bonded amalgam exhibited minimum microleakage, when compared to amalgam and composite resin and was found to be statistically insignificant (P = 0.203), while amalgam showed better fracture resistance compared to bonded amalgam and composite resin. It was found to be statistically insignificant (P = 0.144). Conclusions: Bonded amalgam appears to be comparable to amalgam when microleakage is considered and to composite resin when fracture resistance is considered; hence, bonded amalgam can also be an alternative material to amalgam in molars.