ABSTRACT
Background: The intense development of adhesive restorative materials and parents’ preferences for esthetic restorations prompt clinicians to use alternative restorative materials for primary 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 materials, the bonded amalgam technique is employed. Aims: To evaluate microleakage and fracture resistance of bonded amalgam in primary molars, and compare it with the microleakage and fracture resistance of high‑copper amalgam and composite resin materials. Settings and Design: An in vitro study and 60 caries‑free primary molars were used. Subjects and Methods: A total of 60 samples were randomly divided into two equal groups for the evaluation of microleakage and fracture resistance. Class V cavities for microleakage study prepared on 30 samples and Class II mesio‑occluso‑distal cavities for fracture resistance study on other 30 samples were prepared and randomly divided into three equal groups. Group I received amalgam, Group II received bonded amalgam, and Group III received composite resins. 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 primary molars.