Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

No more amalgams: Use of amalgam and amalgam alternative materials in primary dental care

Key Points

  • Provides readers with a greater appreciation of the challenges facing the profession in terms of the Minamata Treaty.

  • Explores the challenges in moving from amalgam to resin composite for the restoration of posterior teeth.

  • Discusses the relevant evidence base for placing posterior resin composites.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Adult Dental Health Survey 2009. Available online at (accessed 22 May 2018).

  2. 2

    Burke F J, Lucarotti P S . How long do direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales survive? Br Dent J 2009; 206: E2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Brunton P A, Burke F J, Sharif M O et al. Contemporary dental practice in the UK in 2008: aspects of direct restorations, endodontics and bleaching. Br Dent J 2012; 212: 63–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Lynch C D, Wilson N H F . Managing the phase-down of amalgam. Part I: educational and training issues. Br Dent J 2013; 215: 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Lynch C D . Successful posterior resin composites. London: Quintessence Publishing Co., 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Gilmour A S M, Latif M, Addy L D, Lynch C D . Placement of posterior resin composite restorations in United Kingdom dental practices: techniques, problems, and attitudes. Int Dent J 2009; 59: 148–154.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Mjör I A, Wilson N H F . Teaching of Class I, Class II direct resin composite resin restorations: results of a survey of dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129: 1415–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Lynch C D, McConnell R J, Wilson N H F . Trends in the placement of posterior resin composites in dental schools. J Dent Educ 2007; 71: 430–434.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Opdam N J M, Bronkhorst E M, Loomans B A C, Huysmans M-C . 12-year survival of resin composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 1063–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Da Rosa Rodolpho P A, Donassollo T A, Cenci M S et al. 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 955–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Pallesen U, van Dijken J W, Halken J, Hallonsten A.-L, Höigaard R . Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent 2013; 41: 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Wilson N H F, Dunne S M, Gainsford I D . Current materials and techniques for direct restorations in posterior teeth. Part 2: resin composite systems. Int Dent J 1997; 47: 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Lynch C D, Opdam N J, Hickel R et al. Guidance on the use of resin composites for direct restoration of posterior teeth: Academy of Operative Dentistry European Section. J Dent 2014; 42: 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Wilson N H, Lynch C D . The teaching of posterior resin composites: planning for the future based on 25 years of research. J Dent 2014; 42: 503–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Wilson N H F, Mjör I . The teaching of class I and class II direct resin composite restorations in European dental schools. J Dent 2000; 28: 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Lynch C D, Blum I R, McConnell R J, Frazier K B, Brunton P A, Wilson N H F . Teaching posterior resin composites in UK and Ireland dental schools: do current teaching programmes match the expectation of clinical practice arrangements? Br Dent J 2018; 224: 967–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Bogacki R E, Hunt R J, del Aguila M, Smith W R . Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 488–492.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Laccabue M, Ahlf R L, Simecek J W . Frequency of restoration replacement in posterior teeth for US Navy and Marine Corps Personnel. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Patel P M, Lynch C D, Sloan A J . Gilmour A S M . Treatment planning for replacing missing teeth in UK general dental practice: current trends. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 509–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Wilson N H F . Personal communication.

  21. 21

    Blum I R, Wilson N H F . An end to linings under posterior composites? J Am Dent Assoc 2018; 149: 209–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Blum I R, Younis N, Wilson N H F . Use of lining materials under posterior resin composite restorations in the UK. J Dent 2017; 57: 66–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Sadaghiani L, Brownrigg-Gleeson H, Youde S, Waddington R J, Lynch C D, Sloan A J . Growth factor liberation and DPSCs response following dentine conditioning. J Dent Res 2016; 95: 1298–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Burrow M F, Banomyong D, Harnirattisai C, Messer H H . Effect of glass-ionomer cement lining on postoperative sensitivity in occlusal cavities restored with resin composite – a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 648–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Loomans B A, Opdam N J, Roeters F J, Bronkhorst E M, Burgersdijk R C, Dörfer C E . A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent 2007; 34: 292–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Müllejans R, Badawi M O, Raab W H, Lang H . An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 122–126.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Hickey D, Sharif O, Janjua F, Brunton P A . Bulk dentine replacement versus incrementally placed resin composite: A randomised controlled clinical trial. J Dent 2016; 46: 18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Tan R T, Burke F J . Response rates to questionnaires mailed to dentist. A review of 77 publications. Int Dent J 1997; 47: 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study was funded by a grant from the Wales School for Primary Care Research, for which CDL and IGC were co-Principal Investigators. The assistance of the funder, and in particular Mr Robyn Davies and Michaela Gal, is gratefully appreciated.

We are also very grateful to those practitioners who took time from their busy schedules to complete the questionnaire.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. D. Lynch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lynch, C., Farnell, D., Stanton, H. et al. No more amalgams: Use of amalgam and amalgam alternative materials in primary dental care. Br Dent J 225, 171–176 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links