The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. METHODS: Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed. RESULTS: This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41-0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11-0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77-1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39-1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67-1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34-7.84]. CONCLUSIONS: GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959].

Evaluation of the reasons for failure in teeth with vital amputation treatment.

AIM: This study aims to evaluate the primary teeth undergoing amputation due to dental caries or trauma clinically and radiologically. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The amputation treatment of 90 primary teeth of 58 patients (Female: 20, Male: 38) aged 4-11 years was evaluated clinically and radiologically. Calcium Hydroxide was used for amputation in this study. Composite or amalgam was preferred as filling material in the same session of the patients. Clinical/radiological (Periapical/Panoramic X-ray) examination was performed on the teeth that were unsuccessful in treatment, on the day of the patient's complaint, and at the end of 1 year in the others. RESULTS: According to the clinical and radiological findings of the patients, 14.4% of the boys and 12.3% of the girls were unsuccessful. Amputation in male was a need in the 6-7 age group with a rate of 44.6% at most. Amputation in females was a need in the 8-9 age group with a rate of 52% at most. CONCLUSION: Success in amputation treatment depends on the tooth, the dentist, and the dental material applied.

Clinical longevity of extensive direct resin composite restorations after amalgam replacement with a mean follow-up of 15 years.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to determine the survival of extensive direct resin composite restorations after amalgam replacement on vital molars and premolars after a mean observation period of 15 years. METHODS: Between January 2007 and September 2013, a total of 117 extensive cusp replacing direct resin composite restorations were placed in 88 patients in a general dental practice. These were indicated for replacement of existing amalgam restorations. Tooth vitality, the absence of at least one cusp in premolars, and at least two cusps in molars were considered for inclusion. The long-term follow-up of the restorations, re-evaluated after up to 17 years using the original evaluation criteria is reported. RESULTS: 81 of 88 patients (92.1%) and 106 of 117 restorations (90.6%) were available for follow-up. The cumulative success rate was 62.0% (95% CI: 47.3-76.2, AFR 2.79%) after a mean observation time of 163.4 months, the cumulative survival rate was 74.7% (95% CI: 59.8-89.6%, AFR: 1.70%) after a mean observation time of 179.1 months. The number of cusps replaced in premolars had a statistically significant influence on the success and survival rate of the restorations (HR of respectively, 2.974 and 3.175, p = <0.0005). Premolars with two cusps replaced had 297% more chance of failure than premolars with one cusp replaced. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive direct resin composite restorations placed after amalgam replacement showed good survival after a mean observation period of 15 years. The number of cusps involved had a statistically significant influence on the longevity of the restorations in premolars. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: With good survival and low annual failure rates, direct resin composite restorations are a suitable treatment for repairing extensive defects in posterior teeth involving multiple cusps and surfaces, provided that they are placed by a dentist who has long experience and is skilled in the placement of direct composite materials.

Resin Composite Versus Amalgam Restorations Placed in United States Dental Schools.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the latest teaching policies for posterior resin composite placement versus amalgam and to determine the actual numbers of posterior resin composites versus amalgam restorations placed in American dental schools from 2008 to 2018. METHODS: Emails were sent to the deans of all 66 dental schools in the United States to collect data in the forms of: 1) Questionnaire on current teaching policies of posterior composite and amalgam restorations; and 2) Data entry form to collect the actual numbers of posterior composite and amalgam restorations placed in their clinics. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize ratios of posterior restorations. Inferential analysis (chi-square test and z-test) was employed to compare posterior restoration proportions over time and within each year. Level of significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: For the teaching questionnaire, the response rate was 52% (n=34). Seventy-six per cent of the responding schools reported that they assign 50% or more of their preclinical restorative teaching time towards posterior resin composite placement, while 50% of the responding schools devoted 25% or less towards amalgam teaching. Data entry response rate was 26% (n=17). In 2008, amalgam and resin composite restorations were placed almost equally. However, resin composite restorations were placed significantly more frequently from 2009 onwards in all responding schools. The results revealed a significant ongoing increasing trend in placing posterior resin composites in all responding schools over time (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis revealed a clear trend towards an increase in posterior resin composite restoration placement and a decrease in the number of amalgam restorations. However, the time assigned for posterior resin composite teaching is not aligned with quantity of restorations placed. Review and adjustment of the time allocated for teaching and training of each material are suggested.

Fracture resistance of defective amalgam restorations repaired with a resin-based composite material.

BACKGROUND: Repair is used to increase the longevity of defective restorations, such as large amalgams. The aim of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance and fracture modes of mesio-occlusodistal (MOD) amalgam molar restorations with extensive cuspal fracture repaired or replaced using a bulk-fill resin-based composite material. METHODS: Amalgam restorations were placed in 84 permanent extracted molars and randomly assigned (n = 14) to groups: (1) MOD amalgam, (2) composite repair of 1-cusp fracture and adjacent proximal box, (3) composite repair of 1-cusp fracture, (4) composite repair of 2-cusp fracture, (5) replacement of 1-cusp defect and existing MOD amalgam, (6) replacement of 2-cusp defect and MOD amalgam. Each molar was prepared to simulate the assigned fracture and either repaired or replaced. Specimens were aged and then loaded to fracture. Fracture resistance and fracture modes were recorded. RESULTS: The authors found significant differences (P < .001) between group 4 (1,652.3 N) and groups 5 (3,095.0 N), 1 (2,669.8 N), 6 (2,658.6 N), and 2 (2,442.9 N) as well as between group 3 (2,133.5 N) and group 5 (3,095.0 N). The results of the Fisher exact test showed differences among groups (P < .001), with group 5 having the highest number of nonrestorable fractures as well as higher fracture resistance on average. CONCLUSIONS: Composite material is a viable option for the repair and replacement of cuspal defects, especially in the case of a 1-cusp fracture and 1-cusp fracture involving the adjacent proximal box. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the repair of cusp fractures in existing MOD amalgam-restored molars is an appropriate treatment option, although replacement of the defect and existing restoration with resin-based composite will withstand higher forces.

Reflections from undergraduate teaching experiences: some problems and solutions of restoring teeth with dental resin composite instead of dental amalgam.

This is a simple personal reflection on some of the problems and solutions related to the increasing use of composite resin to replace dental amalgam when dental students learn to place restorations at the start of their careers. To the author, much seems common sense. Much is not, or cannot, be backed up by ideal science and some may still be considered outdated to the more progressive practitioner. Unfortunately, prospective, ideally-designed clinical trials may no longer be possible to seek the answers we lack due to ethical, organisational, financial or other constraints.

Amalgam Phase-Down Part 2: UK-Based Knowledge, Opinions, and Confidence in the Alternatives.

INTRODUCTION: Amalgam use has recently been phased down, and the potential for a phase-out is being investigated. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to identify knowledge of the phase-down and opinions of a potential phase-out of amalgam by UK primary care clinicians and assess their confidence in using different materials in different situations. METHODS: An anonymized, prepiloted cross-sectional e-survey was used to assess primary care clinicians' knowledge and opinions of the amalgam phase-down and potential phase-out and their confidence in using amalgam and the alternatives in different situations. In total, 11,902 invitations were distributed through British dentist and therapist associations. Prior hypotheses were tested alongside descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Response rate was 13% (n = 1,513). Knowledge of the amalgam phase-down was low, with just 3% clinicians correctly identifying all patient groups in whom amalgam use should be avoided in the United Kingdom. Postgraduate education on posterior composite placement was high (88%), but a large majority had personal and patient-centered concerns over the suitability of the alternatives and lacked confidence when placing composite in comparison to amalgam in difficult situations (P < 0.0001). Logistic regressions revealed that the best predictors of high confidence in placing mesio-occluso-distal composites and composites in difficult situations were being a private general dentist or being primarily a composite user. CONCLUSION: Primary care clinicians have major personal and patient-centered concerns regarding the amalgam phase-down (of which they have limited knowledge) and potential phase-out. Many lack confidence in using the alternative, composite, to restore posterior teeth in difficult situations, whereas confidence in using amalgam in similar situations is high. Effective education of clinicians and understanding patients' needs, alongside policy changes, are required to enable a successful amalgam phase-down and potential phase-out. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: This study shows that UK primary care clinicians are worried about the phase-down of amalgam for themselves and their patients. Many lack confidence in the alternative, composite, when used in difficult situations, which is in stark contrast to amalgam. Knowledge of the phase-down is limited. There is a need for more effective education of clinicians, an understanding of patients' values, and policy changes to ensure the success of the phase-down and potential phase-out of amalgam.

The impact of different dental restorations on detection of proximal caries by cone beam computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of different types of restorations on observer ability to detect proximal caries in CBCT images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human premolars and molars with artificial proximal caries were placed proximal and distal to 5 molars having different restorations (amalgam, composite, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) fillings, zirconia, and lithium disilicate crowns) and a non-restored molar. CBCT scans were obtained using i-CAT® Next Generation. Images were rated twice by 2 observers. The exact depth of artificial caries was histologically established. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az) values were calculated. RESULTS: Caries detection in teeth surfaces mesial and distal to amalgam showed compromised specificity and accuracy. Moreover, caries detection in teeth surfaces mesial to zirconia crown showed low sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Capability of CBCT in detection of proximal caries in teeth adjacent to composite, RMGIC, and lithium disilicate was comparable to those adjacent to non-restored molar. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT scans performed for tasks other than caries detection should be assessed for proximal caries in absence of any restorations as well as in presence of composite, RMGIC fillings, and lithium disilicate crowns. However, CBCT should not be used for proximal caries detection in teeth adjacent to amalgam and teeth surfaces mesial to zirconia crowns. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It is important to investigate the influence of artifacts produced by various restorations on CBCT-based caries detection to optimize CBCT benefits, caries diagnosis and avoid unnecessary treatment of sound surfaces.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.

Composite versus Amalgam Restorations Placed in Canadian Dental Schools.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the latest teaching policies of posterior composite placement versus amalgam and to determine the actual numbers of posterior composites versus amalgam restorations placed in Canadian dental schools, over the years from 2008 to 2018. METHODS: Emails were sent to Chairs/Heads of Restorative Departments and Clinic Directors of all 10 Canadian dental schools to collect data in the forms of: 1) Questionnaire on current teaching policies of posterior composite and amalgam restorations; 2) data entry form to collect the actual numbers of posterior composite and amalgam restorations placed in their clinics. RESULTS: For the teaching questionnaire, the response rate was 90% (n=9). Seven (78%) of the responding schools reported that they assign 25%-50% of their preclinical restorative teaching time towards posterior composite placement. While, three (33%) of the responding schools allocated 50%-75% of their restorative teaching towards amalgam placement. Data entry response rate was 80% (n=8). Amalgam material was dominant in the restoration distribution from 2008 to 2012. While from 2013 to 2018, resin composite material was dominant in all eight responding schools. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant increasing trend in placing posterior composites in all the responding schools over time (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis revealed a clear trend towards an increase of posterior composite restoration placement and a decrease in the number of amalgam restorations placed. However, the teaching time assigned for posterior composite is not aligned with quantity placed. Review and adjustment of time allocated for teaching and training of each material are recommended.

Assessing the perceived impact of post Minamata amalgam phase down on oral health inequalities: a mixed-methods investigation.

BACKGROUND: Data from countries that have implemented a complete phase out of dental amalgam following the Minamata agreement suggest increased costs and time related to the placement of alternatives with consumers absorbing the additional costs. This aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a complete phase out of dental amalgam on oral health inequalities in particular for countries dependent on state run oral health services. METHODS: A mixed methods component design quantitative and qualitative study in the United Kingdom. The quantitative study involved acquisition and analysis of datasets from NHS Scotland to compare trends in placement of dental amalgam and a survey of GDPs in Yorkshire, UK. The qualitative study involved analysis of the free text of the survey and a supplementary secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews and focus groups with GDPs (private and NHS), dental school teaching leads and NHS dental commissioners to understand the impact of amalgam phase down on oral health inequalities. RESULTS: Time-trends for amalgam placement showed that there was a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in amalgam use compared with composites and glass ionomers. However dental amalgam still represented a large proportion (42%) of the restorations (circa 1.8 million) placed in the 2016-2017 financial year. Survey respondents suggest that direct impacts of a phase down were related to increased costs and time to place alternative restorations and reduced quality of care. This in turn would lead to increased tooth extractions, reduced access to care and privatisation of dental services with the greatest impact on deprived populations. CONCLUSION: Amalgam is still a widely placed material in state run oral health services. The complete phase down of dental amalgam poses a threat to such services and threatens to widen oral health inequalities. Our data suggest that a complete phase out is not currently feasible unless appropriate measures are in place to ensure cheaper, long-lasting and easy to use alternatives are available and can be readily adopted by primary care oral health providers.

Reparación de defecto localizado en restauración de amalgama como tratamiento de mínima intervención en cariología / Repair of a localized defect in a restoration with amalgam filling as minimal intervention treatment in cariology

Introducción: La reparación de restauraciones ha sido estudiada desde muy recientemente, pero a pesar de haber demostrado efectividad y mejoras en la terapéutica de la caries dental, aún tiene seguidores y detractores, lo que justifica la necesidad de estudios que sigan avalando tales prácticas. Objetivo: Describir, a través de la presentación de un caso, la reparación de un defecto localizado en una restauración de amalgama como tratamiento de mínima intervención en cariología. Presentación del caso: Paciente femenina de 16 años con antecedentes de salud acude a consulta refiriendo una pequeña fractura de restauración en diente 4.6 desde hace varias semanas. La regularización del defecto en la restauración, la mínima preparación cavitaria, la eliminación del fragmento de la base intermedia, la protección del complejo dentino-pulpar y el llenado de la cavidad resultante, fueron los primeros pasos de una técnica que se cumplimentó luego del pulido final de la interface tejido dentario-restauración y se evolucionó cinco años después. Se evidenció el estado y presencia de la reparación de la restauración realizada, sin fracturas añadidas, microfiltraciones, sintomatologías, desplazamientos ni pérdidas de la continuidad. Conclusiones: La reparación del defecto localizado de amalgama se realizó con el fin de preservar los tejidos dentarios no afectados como lo dicta la mínima intervención en cariología. Cinco años más tarde, la evolución evidencia una práctica que se tradujo en resultados satisfactorios e incremento de la calidad de vida de la paciente(AU)

Introduction: Restoration repair has been studied recently; but, even when it has demonstrated effectiveness and improvements in the therapy of dental caries, it still has followers and detractors that justify the need for studies that continue supporting such practices. Objective: To describe, through a case presentation, the repair of a defect located in a restoration with amalgam filling as minimal intervention treatment in cariology. Case presentation: Sixteen-year-old female patient with health history that went to the clinic reporting a small fracture of a restoration performed in tooth 4.6 several weeks ago. The regularization of the defect in the restoration, minimum cavity preparation, elimination of the fragment of the intermediate base, protection of the dentin-pulp complex, and filling of the resulting cavity were the first steps of a technique that was completed after the final polishing of the dental tissue/restoration interface that was evolved five years later. The status and presence of the restoration repair performed without added fractures, microfiltration, symptomatology, displacement or loss of continuity was evidenced. Conclusions: The repair of the localized defect in a restoration with amalgam filling was performed with the aim of preserving the unaffected dental tissues as dictated by minimal intervention in cariology. Five years later, the patient´s evolution shows a practice that resulted in satisfactory results and an increase in the patient's quality of life(AU)

The transition from amalgam to other restorative materials in the U.S. predoctoral pediatric dentistry clinics.

Increased concerns about the safety of amalgam restorations in children have resulted in many dental schools emphasizing the teaching of alternative dental materials. This study investigated the current teaching of different dental materials for use in posterior teeth in the United States predoctoral pediatric dentistry programs. In 2011, the authors invited the chairs of the predoctoral pediatric dentistry departments in all accredited dental schools at that time (N = 57) to participate in an internet-based survey. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the frequency of using different restorative materials. Regression models were developed to explore the factors related to the use of dental restorations in predoctoral pediatric clinics. Among the 44 dental schools that responded (77% response rate), 74% used amalgam, and 93% used composite in primary posterior teeth. Glass ionomer was used by 61% of the schools in primary posterior teeth. Placing amalgam in primary posterior teeth was associated with programs that treated more 3-5-year-old patients (ß = .302, p < .043), whereas the use of glass ionomer was associated with having students serving at off-site satellite dental clinics (ß = .015, p < .012). In general, having departments with chairs who had positive attitudes towards Minimal Invasive Dentistry (MID) used composite (ß = .091, p < .0001) and glass ionomer (ß = 103, p < .0001) more frequently and were less likely to use amalgam (ß = -.077, p < .005) in primary posterior teeth. Although teaching MID concepts in predoctoral pediatric clinics in dental schools is increasing, the use of amalgam in posterior primary and permanent teeth is still widely practiced.

Reasons for direct restoration failure from childhood to adolescence: A birth cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of direct restorations in posterior teeth in children aged 12, from a birth cohort, and to test the association between the quality of the restorations and individual variables experienced in the life cycle. METHODS: All live-born children in Pelotas, in 2004, were prospectively investigated and a representative sample was assessed for oral conditions at ages 5 and 12. The outcome was the quality of the restoration (satisfactory/unsatisfactory). Independent variables included socioeconomic, behavioral and oral health characteristics at the individual level and the size of cavity and material at the tooth level. Associations were tested using multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 1,000 participants and 249 restorations in the permanent dentition were examined. Most of the restorations were composites (73.5%), while only 6.8% were amalgam. After adjusted analyses, children whose parents received information on how to prevent their child from developing caries before reaching 5 years of age had 91.0% less chance of having an unsatisfactory restoration compared to children whose parents never received information (OR = 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.59). Also, the chances of presenting unsatisfactory restorations were 5.3 higher in children at high-risk for untreated dental caries in the permanent dentition, in comparison with children at low risk (OR = 5.32; 95% CI 1.07-26.6). CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk for untreated dental caries and having received information on preventing dental caries, reduced the chance of presenting failed restorations, showing that factors related to individuals play an important role in the quality of restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings highlight the role that individual-related factors play in restoration longevity in children, reinforcing the need for a patient-centered approach in restorative dentistry.

Skin color affect the replacement of amalgam for composite in posterior restorations: a birth-cohort study.

The aim of present study was to estimate the occurrence and associated factors for replacement of amalgam posterior restorations. A representative sample of all 5,914 births from the 1982 in Pelotas birth cohort study was prospectively investigated, and the posterior restorations were assessed at 24 (n = 720) and 31 years of age (n = 539). Individual-level variables, i.e., demographic characteristics, socio-economic factors, oral health conditions and use of dental services, were collected from different waves of the cohort. Tooth-level variables included dental group, estimated time in mouth of each amalgam restoration, and number of restored dental surfaces. Thus, 246 individuals presented 718 amalgam restorations at 24 years of age. After 7 seven years of follow-up, 18.9% of these restorations had been replaced with composite resins. Multilevel Poisson regression models showed that, compared to white individuals, blacks presented a lower risk of replacement of amalgam restorations for composite resins (IRR - 0.39 [0.16-0.95]). Individuals with high educational level at age 31 showed an increased likelihood of replacement of amalgam restorations. Therefore, skin color affects the replacement of amalgam for composite resin in posterior restorations.

Skin color affect the replacement of amalgam for composite in posterior restorations: a birth-cohort study

Abstract The aim of present study was to estimate the occurrence and associated factors for replacement of amalgam posterior restorations. A representative sample of all 5,914 births from the 1982 in Pelotas birth cohort study was prospectively investigated, and the posterior restorations were assessed at 24 (n = 720) and 31 years of age (n = 539). Individual-level variables, i.e., demographic characteristics, socio-economic factors, oral health conditions and use of dental services, were collected from different waves of the cohort. Tooth-level variables included dental group, estimated time in mouth of each amalgam restoration, and number of restored dental surfaces. Thus, 246 individuals presented 718 amalgam restorations at 24 years of age. After 7 seven years of follow-up, 18.9% of these restorations had been replaced with composite resins. Multilevel Poisson regression models showed that, compared to white individuals, blacks presented a lower risk of replacement of amalgam restorations for composite resins (IRR - 0.39 [0.16-0.95]). Individuals with high educational level at age 31 showed an increased likelihood of replacement of amalgam restorations. Therefore, skin color affects the replacement of amalgam for composite resin in posterior restorations.

[Paradigm shift in conservative dentistry: the end of the amalgam era]. / Paradigmaváltás a fogmegtartó kezelésben: az amalgámkorszak vége.

Dental amalgam has been used for more than 150 years due to its beneficial mechanical properties and durability in dentistry. In the past and to date, many questions about amalgam restorations have arisen, especially regarding the mercury content, which has been the subject of global disputes. By presenting the past and present of the 'amalgam issue', the aim of our paper is to display the current position of international literature. This summary is based on the publications in the PubMed database, the guidelines of the Council of European Dentists. Although the use of dental amalgam is widespread, concerns have been raised about the adverse effect on human health and the environment, focusing on its heavy metal pollution during waste treatment. In 2017, the European Union (EU) adopted the so-called Mercury Regulation, based on the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury, the recommendations of which are presented in the present review. This Regulation includes the requirement for EU Member States to develop a national action plan for the phase-down of amalgam. The feasibility plan for complete phase-out may be guaranteed by 2030. The authors discuss the advantages and disadvantages of possible amalgam alternatives by presenting glass-ionomers and resin-based composites. In the future, more material research programmes and long-term follow-up studies are necessary. In addition to several global health organizations, the Council of European Dentists also draws attention to prevent dental caries, expecting to reduce the number of restorations. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(42): 1700-1709.

Direct Posterior Restorations: A 13-Year Survey of Teaching Trends and Use of Materials.

OBJECTIVE:: The study aimed to evaluate teaching trends and use of materials in direct posterior restorations during a 13-year period in an Israeli dental school. METHODS:: Data registered in computerized files, relating to posterior restorations performed in the student clinic during the past 13 years (2004-2016), were collected. The restorative materials used (ie, amalgam vs composite), the type of tooth, and the number of surfaces restored were analyzed. RESULTS:: Data analysis included 26,925 restorations performed during 13 years. The number of one-surface composite restorations increased from 54.7% (n=330) to 81.9% (n=873). Two-surface restorations increased from 33.3% (n=254) to 64.3% (n=721). The percentage of amalgam restorations in three-surface restorations decreased from 72.08% to 51.34% (n=173). Analysis of tooth type showed that in 2016, the number of composite restorations performed in premolars reached 80.87% (n=723) and in molars 63.50% (n=1035). The percentage of composite restorations in the mandible and the maxilla was virtually equal. CONCLUSIONS:: A clear trend in favor of composite resin restorations is evident in the 13-year survey and suggests a move toward an amalgam-free era.

An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations.

AIM: The aim of this study was to review patterns of restoration placement and replacement. A previous study had been carried out in the late 1990s and this study sought to update the literature in this important aspect of dental practice. METHOD: Studies based on the protocol of Mjör (1981) were selected. Such studies involved participating dentists completing a proforma each time a patient presented for a new or replacement restoration. RESULTS: Twenty-five papers were included in this study, of which 12 were included in the original review. The pre-1998 review reported on the placement of 32,697 restorations, of which 14,391 (44%) were initial placements and 18,306 (56%) were replacements. The new studies included in the post-1998 review reported on an additional 54,023 restorations, of which 22,625 (41.9%) were initial placements and 31,398 (58.1%) were replacements. Therefore, across all studies considered, information is available on 86,720 restorations, of which 37,016 (42.7%) were new placements and 49,704 (57.3%) were replacements. Comparing review periods, there was a reduction in the placement of amalgam restorations from 56.7% (pre-1998 review) to 31.2% (post-1998 review), with a corresponding increase in the placement of resin composites from 36.7% to 48.5%. The most common use of amalgam was seen in Nigeria (71% of restorations), Jordan (59% of restorations) and the UK (47% of restorations). The most frequent use of resin composite was seen in Australia (55% of restorations), Iceland (53% of restorations) and Scandinavia (52% of restorations). Secondary caries was the most common reason for replacing restorations (up to 59% of replacement restorations). CONCLUSION: In the years subsequent to the initial review, replacement of restorations still accounts for more than half of restorations placed by dentists, and the proportion of replacement restorations continues to increase. Trends towards the increased use of resin composites is noted in recent years. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Further research is required in this area to investigate changes in the approaches to the restoration of teeth, especially with increased understanding of the concept of restoration repair as an alternate to replacement.