Amalgam and composite posterior restorations: curriculum versus practice in operative dentistry at a US dental school

This study recorded the number of preclinical lecture and simulation laboratory sessions spent teaching the preparation and placement of amalgam and resin composite posterior restorations. These data were compared to the use of both materials in the operative clinic as placed by third- and fourth-year students. The number of posterior restorations inserted by the students, expressed as a function of the number of restoration surfaces, was also evaluated. The results show that the teaching of posterior restorations pre-clinically has consistently favored amalgam 2.5 to 1 during the last three years. However, clinically, resin composite is being used for posterior restorations 2.3 times more often than amalgam. The only instance that favored amalgam over composite during the last year was in the placement of four surface posterior restorations. This shift in emphasis from amalgam to composite needs to be addressed within dental educational institutions so that newly graduated dentists are prepared to place composite restorations properly.     

Critical appraisal: preheating composites

Resin composite is the most commonly used material for direct placement restorations. In particular, composite is now used more frequently than amalgam for direct posterior restorations. However, resin composite still suffers from some disadvantages, including the use of an adhesive interfacial bond that degrades with time, moisture, and function in the mouth, and certain key mechanical properties (e.g., modulus of elasticity) that are inferior to those of amalgam. As such, there is a concern that the resin composite should be inserted into a preparation with as few voids as possible to enhance interfacial adaptation, and maximizing the composite degree of conversion so as to maximize mechanical properties. The use of preheated composite has been suggested to aid in both of these goals. This Critical Appraisal looks at evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that examines the value of inserting warm composite into cavity preparations.     

Direct placement restorative materials for use in posterior teeth: the current options

The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines to assist in the selection of dental materials for restoring posterior teeth in adolescents. Currently, amalgam is still the best plastic restorative material for some Class I cavities, and for Class II cavities and all multi-surface restorations. Tooth-coloured materials are preferred by some patients and dentists, however these alternatives are more technique sensitive than amalgam. Composite resin is the most common direct placement alternative to dental amalgam, providing patients with relatively low cost, tooth-coloured restorations. However, composite resins have limited indication, their placement is more time-consuming than for amalgam, cost-benefit considerations are a concern, difficulty in obtaining a marginal seal persists and there are few long-term studies published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The literature currently supports the use of composite resin for the restoration of a limited range of Class I and Class II cavities. Composite resin restorations are not recommended for MOD or other multi-surface restorations. In selected clinical situations, fissure sealants, preventive resin restorations and glass ionomer cement are also appropriate materials to use to restore posterior teeth. Fissure sealants, when properly maintained, can play a significant role in the prevention and control of dental caries in pits and fissures in primary and permanent teeth. Preventive resin restorations should be placed to restore deep pits and fissures with incipient caries and/or developmental defects in primary and permanent teeth. Glass ionomer cement may be used for restoring Class V cavities where appearance is not the primary concern, for conservative Class III cavities, and as a provisional restorative material. It is not recommended for Class II or IV restorations.     

Trends in material choice for direct restorations by final year students from University College Cork 2004-2009

Traditionally, undergraduate students in University College Cork (UCC) have been taught to use amalgam as the first choice material for direct restoration of posterior cavities. Since 2005 the use of composite resins has replaced amalgam as the first choice material. An audit was conducted of all direct restorations placed by final year students from UCC from 2004 until 2009. Results showed that over a six year period, final year UCC dental undergraduate students placed proportionately more direct composite resin restorations and significantly fewer amalgam restorations. The need for and undergraduate exposure to, provision of amalgam restorations may have to be revisited.     

Controversy of silver amalgam as a restorative material

Silver amalgam contains mercury leading to concerns about the potential toxic effects of amalgam on the health of dental patients. The debate over the toxicity of silver amalgam restorations has divided the dental profession for over a century. The use of amalgam restorations for anterior teeth have been declining worldwide due to patient’s safety concerns and preference for tooth colored restorations. Nevertheless, amalgam has served the dental profession for decades and benefited hundreds of millions of patients because of its longevity as a dental restorative material. Amalgam is still the World’s most widely used restorative material for posterior teeth.     

Amalgam to tooth-coloured materials--implications for clinical practice and dental education: governmental restrictions and amalgam-usage survey results

OBJECTIVES: To review governmental guidelines on amalgam use worldwide and to assess trends in the usage of amalgam and composite materials in restoration of posterior teeth. METHODS: A letter was sent to 24 government health agencies or representative organisations requesting details of regulations pertaining to amalgam use. A literature search was carried out in order to identify papers in which the incidence of amalgam and composite restorations was stated. RESULTS: Ten replies were received, indicating few restrictions on the use of amalgam. Results obtained from published work appear to indicate that amalgam use is declining, but at rates which are unclear in many countries because of the paucity of published data. Amalgam use has been found to be decreasing in the USA, Australia and Scandinavia, with lesser decreases being apparent in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: There are few restrictions to the use of amalgam worldwide. In countries where data are available, such as USA, Australia and Scandinavia, amalgam use has been found to be decreasing, with smaller decreases being apparent in the UK.     

Marginal fracture of posterior composite resins

This study assesses the early cavomarginal breakdown of the newer posterior composite resin restorations compared with that of amalgam restorations. A total of 432 posterior composite restorations and 73 amalgam restorations were examined: 121 composite restorations (28%) and 44 amalgam restorations (60%) clinically showed a marginal crevice at some point on the cavosurface margin of the restoration at 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year recalls. The largest single reason for poor marginal adaptation was marginal fracture. Up to 2 years, the marginal integrity of the studied posterior composites was superior to that of an amalgam alloy. It was determined that smaller cavities, greater bulk of resin at the margin (especially at functional cusp areas), and well-finished margins without overfiling seem to reduce the occurrence of marginal fracture on composite resin restorations.     

Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Failure of dental restorations is a major concern in dental practice. Replacement of failed restorations constitutes the majority of operative work. Clinicians should be aware of the longevity of, and likely reasons for the failure of, direct posterior restorations. In a long-term, randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the longevity of amalgam and composite. SUBJECTS, METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors randomly assigned one-half of the 472 subjects, whose age ranged from 8 through 12 years, to receive amalgam restorations in posterior teeth and the other one-half to receive resin-based composite restorations. Study dentists saw subjects annually to conduct follow-up oral examinations and take bitewing radiographs. Restorations needing replacement were failures. The dentists recorded differential reasons for restoration failure. RESULTS: Subjects received a total of 1,748 restorations at baseline, which the authors followed for up to seven years. Overall, 10.1 percent of the baseline restorations failed. The survival rate of the amalgam restorations was 94.4 percent; that of composite restorations was 85.5 percent. Annual failure rates ranged from 0.16 to 2.83 percent for amalgam restorations and from 0.94 to 9.43 percent for composite restorations. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure in both materials. Risk of secondary caries was 3.5 times greater in the composite group. CONCLUSION: Amalgam restorations performed better than did composite restorations. The difference in performance was accentuated in large restorations and in those with more than three surfaces involved. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Use of amalgam appears to be preferable to use of composites in multisurface restorations of large posterior teeth if longevity is the primary criterion in material selection.     

Class I and Class II silver amalgam and resin composite posterior restorations: teaching approaches in Canadian faculties of dentistry

A 10-question survey was mailed to the 10 Canadian faculties of dentistry to determine current approaches to teaching undergraduates about silver amalgam and resin composite for posterior restorations in adults and children. Responses were received from all 10 pedodontic programs and from 8 of the 10 operative and restorative programs. The use of silver amalgam and posterior composite for restorations of primary and permanent teeth is covered in the curricula of all dental schools, but the relative emphasis on the 2 materials varies. In the operative and restorative programs, curriculum time devoted to silver amalgam is either greater than or equal to that devoted to posterior composite. Five of the 8 schools reported greater educational emphasis on silver amalgam for the permanent dentition; however, course directors noted that the preference among patients seen in clinics is tending toward composite restorations. Curricula appear designed to educate students about the optimal use of both materials. Requirements for performance of restorations during training generally do not specify the type of material; these requirements range from 60 restorations to 250 surfaces. Five of the 8 schools conduct clinical competency tests with both materials. The responses from the pedodontic programs were more diverse. The proportion of curriculum time devoted to each type of material in these programs ranged from less than 25% to more than 75%. Five schools reported more emphasis on silver amalgam, 3 schools reported equal emphasis, and 2 schools reported more emphasis on posterior composite. No clinical requirements were specified in any of the undergraduate pedodontic programs. Within some of the faculties, there were differences between the operative and restorative program and the pedodontic program with respect to emphasis on different materials for the posterior dentition.     

Amalgam--Resurrection and redemption. Part 1: the clinical and legal mythology of anti-amalgam.

Dental amalgam has come under attack for its allegedly poor physical properties and clinical performance in addition to its poor appearance. It has been claimed that the American Dental Association has a hidden agenda to protect amalgam and that other countries have banned its use. A literature search revealed that the vast majority of amalgam restorations do not cause fractured cusps or have recurrent caries. Most amalgam restorations have been shown to last longer than resin composite restorations. In addition, the materials and techniques involved in amalgam restorations have vastly improved in recent years. Like resin composite restorations, amalgam restorations can often be repaired. The American Dental Association has no vested interest in protecting amalgam. The use of amalgam has not been banned in any country in the European Union. According to the latest scientific information available, dental amalgam is a remarkably durable and long-lasting restorative material. Although its appearance is unesthetic, its clinical performance and effectiveness are unsurpassed by those of resin composite.     

The future of dental amalgam

This paper is a comment on 'The enigma of dental amalgam' by Carl Leinfelder published in 2004 in the Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. In that paper a warning is stated against a too abrupt change from amalgam towards resin composite, because this will bring a lot of clinical problems due to the limited skills of todays' dentists in placing posterior composite resin restorations. However, the situation in The Netherlands is different since a gradual changeover from amalgam towards resin composites has taken place during the last decades and dental schools have skipped training in placing amalgam restorations out of the curriculum. Clinical studies on the longevity of amalgam and resin composite restorations placed by dental students and dentists who are experienced in both composite resin and amalgam placement show a comparable and acceptable annual failure rate for those restorations. It is concluded that a gradual changeover from amalgam towards composite resin is preferred to avoid clinical problems.     

Composite or amalgam? Not a black or white decision

Amalgam as a restorative material in dentistry is discussed because of believed toxic properties of the material, yet there is no scientific prove for the assumption. Adhesive restorations are a possible alternative for amalgam in restoring posterior teeth. For treatment of primary caries, the direct composite resin restoration has many advantages. When greater defects are to be restored, adhesive composite resin restorations become less favourable. At this moment no long term results are available for indirect adhesive techniques. For the time being it seems necessary to use composite resin as well as amalgam for the restoration of posterior teeth.     

Marginal microleakage of resin-retained bridges in association with existing resin composite and amalgam restorations

The aim of this study was to determine the microleakage associated with resin-retained bridge retainers cemented over amalgam and resin composite restorations. Cavities prepared on the labial surfaces of bovine incisors were restored with either amalgam or a posterior resin composite. Non-precious nickel-chromium alloy frameworks were then attached to the teeth by use of one of four cements: Conclude, ABC, Panavia Ex, and Superbond. The specimens were then stored for two weeks or six months, thermocycled, and tested for microleakage by use of a radioactive tracer and an autoradiographic technique. The results showed that more leakage was associated with the amalgam restorations than with the teeth filled with resin composite. Leakage scores increased with time with both the amalgam and composite restorations, except for the Panavia Ex and ABC materials, respectively.     

Functional and aesthetic guidelines for stress-reduced direct posterior composite restorations

Amalgam has been used in the restoration of structurally compromised posterior teeth for many years. When placing large amalgam restorations, replacement of weak cusps with restorative material is recommended to prevent tooth fracture. This recommendation can be modified with new guidelines using modern adhesive techniques. Semidirect and indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations have progressively replaced amalgam restorations over the past 20 years. Lately, single visit direct resin-bonded composite (RBC) restorations have also been used as a viable alternative to conventional indirect restorations. This paper is intended to introduce a step-by-step protocol for the direct restoration of structurally compromised posterior teeth using RBCs with stress-reducing protocols.     

Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations

BackgroundThe aim of the present study is to evaluate the most common reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations in patients attending the university dental restorative clinics.MethodsA total of 318 restorations which needed to be replaced were clinically and radiographically evaluated in a period of nine months. The frequencies of reasons for replacing posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations were calculated; secondary caries, restoration/tooth fracture, marginal discoloration/ditching, proximal overhang/open margin, loss of anatomy, pain/sensitivity, and esthetics.ResultsThe sample population comprised of 191 females and 106 males. The majority of the sample population fell in the age group of 40–50 years (n = 110). 318 restorations (n = 318) were examined in this study. 82% of examined teeth were restored with amalgam (n = 261), while posterior composite restorations comprised 18% of the examined teeth (n = 57). Among all restorations demanded to be replaced by the patients (n = 318), aesthetic need was the most common reason (n = 98), followed by Ditching or discoloration (n = 64), secondary caries (n = 57), and fracture (n = 44). Loss of anatomy was the least common cause to replace both amalgam and resin composite restorations (n = 5). The different reasons of failure were all significant between amalgam and resin composite restorations as shown in (Fig. 1) (p < 0.005). The most common reason for amalgam replacement was aesthetic. The most common reason for composite replacement was secondary caries and marginal ditching.ConclusionBoth amalgam and composite had different reasons for replacement. Amalgam had lesser risk of developing secondary caries and higher longevity than composite.     

Survival analysis of posterior restorations using an insurance claims database

This study indicates that composite restorations do not last as long as amalgam restorations in posterior teeth. Dentists can use this information to better inform their patients when choosing restorative materials.     

Cariostatic and ultraconservative sealed restorations: six-year results.

The objective of this clinical study was to determine the ability of an ultraconservative, sealed composite resin restoration, without a traditional cavity preparation and without the removal of the carious lesion, to arrest Class I caries. Tooth preparation was limited to placing a bevel in the enamel. These restorations were compared, over 6 years, with (1) ultraconservative, localized, sealed amalgam restorations with no extension for prevention and (2) traditional, unsealed amalgam restorations with the usual extension for prevention outline form. Caries was arrested by the ultraconservative, sealed composite resin restorations for 6 years. Complete sealant retention on the sealed amalgam restorations was somewhat lower than that on the sealed composite resin restorations; conversely, partial sealant retention was higher for the sealed amalgam group. The marginal integrity of the sealed amalgam restorations was significantly superior to that of the unsealed amalgam restorations. The sealant also protected Class I posterior composite resin restorations against wear.     

Composite veneering of complex amalgam restorations

In large posterior cavities, indirect restorations could provide improved performance when compared to direct restorations, but with higher cost and removal of sound tooth structure. Improved mechanical properties have resulted in good clinical performance for amalgam in large cavities but without an esthetic appearance. Resin composites have become popular for posterior restorations, mainly because of good esthetic results. A restorative technique is presented that combines the esthetic properties of directly bonded resin composite and the wide range of indications for amalgam in stress-bearing areas.     

Using composite resin as a posterior restorative material

Composite resins have been improved dramatically over the last few years. Some of the newest formulations are nearly as wear resistant as amalgam. Under the appropriate conditions, they may be used to restore Class I and Class II cavity preparations. Their use, however, must be in accordance with the conditions described in this paper. The following conditions should be followed: The selection of a posterior composite resin should be based on well-documented clinical data, not physical and mechanical properties. Complete moisture control is essential for the successful restoration of posterior teeth with composite resin. Always use a glass ionomer as a liner. The material should cover all the dentin. Cavity preparations should be minimal in dimension. Avoid unnecessary removal of tooth structure. Do not bevel the occlusal cavosurface margin. Insert the composite in increments. Minimize introduction of trauma during the finishing procedure. Use a surface penetrating sealant to reduce wear rate and to enhance margin integrity. Evaluate carefully the clinical performance of the restored tooth at least once a year. Discuss possible limitations of posterior composite resins as compared with amalgam restorations.