Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth


Worthington, Helen V; Khangura, Sara; Seal, Kelsey; Mierzwinski-Urban, Monika; Veitz-Keenan, Analia; Sahrmann, Philipp; Schmidlin, Patrick Roger; Davis, Dell; Iheozor-Ejiofor, Zipporah; Rasines Alcaraz, María Graciela (2021). Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Library, (8):CD005620.

Abstract

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searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam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.

Abstract

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.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
56 citations in Web of Science®
60 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1108 downloads since deposited on 28 Oct 2021
368 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, not_refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Pharmacology (medical)
Uncontrolled Keywords:Pharmacology (medical)
Language:English
Date:13 August 2021
Deposited On:28 Oct 2021 09:58
Last Modified:26 May 2024 01:46
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:1465-1858
OA Status:Green
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005620.pub3
PubMed ID:34387873
  • Content: Published Version
  • Language: English