Research | Published:

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

BDJ volume 225, pages 171176 (27 July 2018) | Download Citation

Subjects

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.

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the use of dental amalgam and amalgam alternate materials in primary dental care in Wales.

Methods

Following pre-piloting, a questionnaire was distributed to 667 dentists registered as working in primary dental care in Wales. The questionnaire sought to determine the current use of amalgam, and amalgam alternative materials in primary dental care services in Wales. In addition, the questionnaire sought to determine the attitudes and confidence of dentists in respect of placement of resin composites as alternatives to dental amalgam.

Results

A response rate of 40.4% was achieved (n = 270). High levels of reported confidence were seen in relation to placing resin composites in posterior teeth, but these levels reduced as the complexity of the cavity increased (while 82% of respondents 'strongly agreed' that they felt confident in placing resin composites in occlusal cavities, this reduced to 52.6% for three-surface occlusoproximal cavities). Patterns of care suggested that 73.3% of respondents often, or always, place amalgam restorations for NHS-funded dentistry in adults, where two or more posterior restorations are required. This proportion drops to 27% for the same scenario in children, and 19.4% in privately-funded care for adults. Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported that restoring posterior teeth with resin composite is too expensive for NHS-funded dentistry. A similar proportion of respondents (65.9%) agreed, or strongly agreed, that having to place resin composite routinely in posterior teeth would cause appointment delays. Respondents estimated that it would take them 1.61 times as long on average to place a resin composite, compared to an amalgam, in a moderately deep two-surface proximal-occlusal cavity in a lower first permanent molar. Respondents felt that the NHS fees would have to increase by 55–60% to support the restoration of posterior teeth with resin composite, rather than dental amalgam.

Conclusions

This study provided insight into current practising arrangements of primary dental care practitioners in relation to the use of dental amalgam and resin composites in the restoration of posterior teeth. Based on a sample of mainly UK-trained dentists, it would seem that amalgam remains the material typically selected for restoring posterior teeth in adults for NHS-funded care. While dentists are knowledgeable and embracing of new techniques for posterior resin composite placement, funding arrangements in NHS dentistry appear to be a barrier to the increasing use of resin composite-based, minimum intervention approaches to the restoration of posterior teeth.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

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

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

    , , et al. Contemporary dental practice in the UK in 2008: aspects of direct restorations, endodontics and bleaching. Br Dent J 2012; 212: 63–67.

  4. 4.

    , . Managing the phase-down of amalgam. Part I: educational and training issues. Br Dent J 2013; 215: 109–113.

  5. 5.

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

  6. 6.

    , , , . Placement of posterior resin composite restorations in United Kingdom dental practices: techniques, problems, and attitudes. Int Dent J 2009; 59: 148–154.

  7. 7.

    , . 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.

  8. 8.

    , , . Trends in the placement of posterior resin composites in dental schools. J Dent Educ 2007; 71: 430–434.

  9. 9.

    , , , . 12-year survival of resin composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 1063–1067.

  10. 10.

    , , et al. 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 955–963.

  11. 11.

    , , , , . 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.

  12. 12.

    , , . Current materials and techniques for direct restorations in posterior teeth. Part 2: resin composite systems. Int Dent J 1997; 47: 185–193.

  13. 13.

    , , 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.

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

    , , , , , . 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.

  17. 17.

    , , , . Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 488–492.

  18. 18.

    , , . Frequency of restoration replacement in posterior teeth for US Navy and Marine Corps Personnel. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 43–49.

  19. 19.

    , , . . Treatment planning for replacing missing teeth in UK general dental practice: current trends. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37: 509–517.

  20. 20.

    . Personal communication.

  21. 21.

    , . An end to linings under posterior composites? J Am Dent Assoc 2018; 149: 209–213.

  22. 22.

    , , . Use of lining materials under posterior resin composite restorations in the UK. J Dent 2017; 57: 66–72.

  23. 23.

    , , , , , . Growth factor liberation and DPSCs response following dentine conditioning. J Dent Res 2016; 95: 1298–1307.

  24. 24.

    , , , . 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.

  25. 25.

    , , , , , . A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent 2007; 34: 292–297.

  26. 26.

    , , , . An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 122–126.

  27. 27.

    , , , . Bulk dentine replacement versus incrementally placed resin composite: A randomised controlled clinical trial. J Dent 2016; 46: 18–22.

  28. 28.

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Affiliations

  1. Professor/ Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, University Dental School & Hospital/ University College Cork, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

    • C. D. Lynch
  2. Senior Lecturer in Medical Statistics, School of Dentistry, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY, United Kingdom

    • D. J. J. Farnell
  3. Research Associate, Centre for Trials Research, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF144YS, United Kingdom

    • H. Stanton
  4. Professor and Honorary Consultant in Dental Public Health, School of Dentistry, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XY, United Kingdom

    • I. G. Chestnutt
  5. Dean, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    • P. A. Brunton
  6. Emeritus Professor of Dentistry, King's College London Dental Institute, London, United Kingdom

    • N. H. F. Wilson

Authors

  1. Search for C. D. Lynch in:

  2. Search for D. J. J. Farnell in:

  3. Search for H. Stanton in:

  4. Search for I. G. Chestnutt in:

  5. Search for P. A. Brunton in:

  6. Search for N. H. F. Wilson in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. D. Lynch.

About this article

Publication history

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.538