-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Traditionally, 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... (Review)
Review
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searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam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.
Topics: Bias; Child; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dentition, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34387873
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3 -
The European Journal of Prosthodontics... Nov 2022The objective of this systematic review was to compare the longevity of direct amalgam and composite resin restorations, in posterior teeth, through clinical,...
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the longevity of direct amalgam and composite resin restorations, in posterior teeth, through clinical, prospective or retrospective studies, with at least 5 years of follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Studies published in the last 15 years (from 2006 to 2021) were collected using the PubMed and Medline databases.
RESULTS
The search strategy associated with the established inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a total of 17 articles. Factors related to failures in the performance of restorations were analyzed together with the clinical performance results of each material over the years of study, according to the methodology of each article.
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of the restorative material, the successful results over more than 5 years are due much more to the correct application of the technique, the operator's skill/knowledge and factors related to the patient, such as the type of tooth, number of faces involved in the restoration and oral hygiene.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Composite Resins; Dental Materials
PubMed: 35438266
DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_2371Maciel09 -
Journal of the American Dental... Feb 2023The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The goal of restoring caries lesions is to protect the pulp, prevent progression of the disease process, and restore the form and function of the tooth. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effect of different direct restorative materials for treating cavitated caries lesions on anterior and posterior primary and permanent teeth.
TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of direct restorative materials commercially available in the United States placed in vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessments of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The authors conducted pair-wise meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and calculated measures of association and their 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis, which included data on Class I and Class II restorations on primary teeth and Class I, Class II, Class III, Class V, and root surface restorations on permanent teeth. Included studies assessed the effect of amalgam, resin composite, compomer, conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass isomer cement, and preformed metal crowns. Moderate to very low certainty evidence suggested varying levels of effectiveness across restorative materials.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Owing to a relatively low event rate across various outcomes indicating restoration failure, there was limited evidence to support important differences between direct restorative materials used in practice.
Topics: United States; Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; American Dental Association; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Tooth, Deciduous; Glass Ionomer Cements
PubMed: 36610925
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2022.09.012 -
European Archives of Paediatric... Feb 2022To systematically review the treatment modalities for molar-incisor hypomineralisation for children under the age of 18 years. The research question was, 'What are the...
PURPOSE
To systematically review the treatment modalities for molar-incisor hypomineralisation for children under the age of 18 years. The research question was, 'What are the treatment options for teeth in children affected by molar incisor hypomineralisation?'
METHODS
An electronic search of the following electronic databases was completed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Google Scholar and Open Grey identifying studies from 1980 to 2020. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. The studies were screened, data extracted and calibration was completed by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS
Of 6220 potential articles, 34 studies were included. Twenty studies investigated management of molars with fissure sealants, glass ionomer cement, polyacid modified resin composite, composite resin, amalgam, preformed metal crowns, laboratory-manufactured crowns and extractions. In four articles management of incisors with microabrasion, resin-infiltration and a combination of approaches was reported. Eight studies looked at strategies to mineralise MIH-affected teeth and/or reduce hypersensitivity. Two studies investigated patient-centred outcomes following treatment. Due to the heterogeneity between the studies, meta-analysis was not performed.
CONCLUSION
The use of resin-based fissure sealants, preformed metal crowns, direct composite resin restorations and laboratory-made restorations can be recommended for MIH-affected molars. There is insufficient evidence to support specific approaches for the management of affected incisors. Products containing CPP-ACP may be beneficial for MIH-affected teeth.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Composite Resins; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Humans; Incisor; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 34110615
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-021-00635-0 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021The aim of this study was to confirm the hypothesis that patients with one or more amalgam restorations have an increased risk for systemic diseases rather than patients... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to confirm the hypothesis that patients with one or more amalgam restorations have an increased risk for systemic diseases rather than patients with resin-based restorations.
DATA
The data search produced an initial 3568 total number of records. All titles and abstract were reviewed by five independent examiners, and only 36 records were selected for full text in depth examination. Out of these, only nine publications matched the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review.
SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Knowledge) were searched up to June 2019. In addition, a manual search was carried out on journals related to this topic.
STUDY SELECTION
All selected human clinical studies compared patients with dental amalgam restorations to patients with non-amalgam restorations on restorative material related diseases/health conditions with at least 50 patients and a reasonable follow up. The systemic effects of dental restorations were analyzed. As for any systemic effects, there was no difference between amalgam and composite restoration.
CONCLUSIONS
With the limitations of the few available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the matter, amalgam restorations, similarly to other modern resin-based materials, were not related to an increased risk of systemic diseases or conditions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
On the basis of the available RCTs, amalgam restorations, if compared with resin-based fillings, do not show an increased risk for systemic diseases. There is still insufficient evidence to exclude or demonstrate any direct influence on general health. The removal of old amalgam restorations and their substitution with more modern adhesive restorations should be performed only when clinically necessary and not just for material concerns. In order to better evaluate the safety of dental amalgam compared to other more modern restorative materials, further RCTs that consider important parameters such as long and uniform follow up periods, number of restorations per patient, and sample populations representative of chronic or degenerative diseases are needed.
PubMed: 33920968
DOI: 10.3390/ma14081980 -
Journal of Dentistry Aug 2023To systematically assess aspects of teaching of posterior composite restorations (PCRs) in permanent teeth in dental schools. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess aspects of teaching of posterior composite restorations (PCRs) in permanent teeth in dental schools.
STUDY SELECTION
Quantitative studies reporting on dental schools' teaching regarding the placement of PCRs in permanent teeth. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed. Risk of bias was assessed based on the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).
SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched in January 2023.
DATA
Forty sources reporting on 34 studies having surveyed 1,286 dental schools were included. Overall, 92.7% (95%-CI: 88.2-95.5) of dental schools reported to teach PCRs. PCRs in three-surface Class II cavities are taught by 82.0% (95%-CI: 70.4-89.7). The mandatory use of liners in deep cavities is taught by 78.3% (95%-CI: 68.9-85.5), and 44.0% (95%-CI: 34.3-54.2) reported to teach bulk-fill composites. While most posterior restorations placed by students were composites (56.1%; 95%-CI: 46.0-65.8), 94.7% (95%-CI: 86.6-98.0) of dental schools (still) teach posterior amalgam restorations. The proportion of dental schools teaching PCRs in three-surface Class II cavities increased and the mean proportion of PCRs among all posterior restorations increased over time (p≤0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
The teaching of PCRs in dental schools around the world reflects the increased use of resin composite in clinical practice, with students in countries where dental amalgam continues to be used, placing more posterior composites than restorations of dental amalgam. The teaching of PCRs, which is anticipated to increase, will continue to be refined with further developments in adhesive materials, devices, instrumentation, and techniques.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Graduating dentists can be expected to be familiar with the use of resin composites for the restoration of posterior teeth.
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Amalgam; Dental Cavity Preparation; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Students; Teaching
PubMed: 37336355
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104589 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Dec 2023The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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].
Topics: Humans; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam
PubMed: 37838608
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008 -
Journal of Biomedical Physics &... Jun 2022Approximately 50% of dental amalgam is elemental mercury by weight. Accumulating body of evidence now shows that not only static magnetic fields (SMF) but both ionizing...
BACKGROUND
Approximately 50% of dental amalgam is elemental mercury by weight. Accumulating body of evidence now shows that not only static magnetic fields (SMF) but both ionizing and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiations can increase the rate of mercury release from dental amalgam fillings. Iranian scientists firstly addressed this issue in 2008 but more than 10 years later, it became viral worldwide.
OBJECTIVE
This review was aimed at evaluating available data on the magnitude of the effects of different physical stressors (excluding chewing and brushing) on the release of toxic mercury from dental amalgam fillings and microleakage.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The papers reviewed in this study were searched from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus (up to 1 December 2019). The keywords were identified from our initial research matching them with those existing on the database of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). The non-English papers and other types of articles were not included in this review.
RESULTS
Our review shows that exposure to static magnetic fields (SMF) such as those generated by MRI, electromagnetic fields (EMF) such as those produced by mobile phones; ionizing electromagnetic radiations such as X-rays and non- Ionizing electromagnetic radiation such as lasers and light cure devices can significantly increase the release of mercury from dental amalgam restorations and/or cause microleakage.
CONCLUSION
The results of this review show that a wide variety of physical stressors ranging from non-ionizing electromagnetic fields to ionizing radiations can significantly accelerate the release of mercury from amalgam and cause microleakage.
PubMed: 35698539
DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2009-1175 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2024This study is to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map scientific evidence and clarify concepts regarding the commonly recommended preventive and restorative... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study is to conduct a comprehensive scoping review to map scientific evidence and clarify concepts regarding the commonly recommended preventive and restorative dental treatments for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer (HNC) and subjected to radiotherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This systematic scoping review was performed under the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The study's experimental design was registered in the Open Science Framework. In vitro studies that evaluated preventive and restorative dental treatment over 50 Gy radiation doses were included. The search was conducted in November 2023 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) without language or date restriction. A search strategy was applied based on keywords, MeSh terms, or synonyms. A descriptive analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 49 studies, out of 3679 original articles identified, were included and reviewed. Of the included studies, three evaluated saliva stimulants and 35 evaluated fluoride-based preventive materials: gel (n = 18) toothpaste (n = 11) mouth rinse (n = 8) and varnish (n = 5) while 14 evaluated restorative materials: resin composite (n = 12) glass ionomer cement (n = 6) and amalgam (n = 1) Of those studies, 36 were clinical trials and 13 were in vitro studies.
CONCLUSION
Fluoride gel was the most frequently recommended preventive material for preventing radiation caries with supportive clinical evidence. Resin composite and glass ionomer were the most frequently used restorative materials, respectively. However, there is not yet clinical evidence to support the use of resin composite in irradiated teeth.
Topics: Humans; Dental Caries; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 38702458
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08522-2 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2023This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness.
METHODS
A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated.
RESULTS
Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Composite Resins; Treatment Outcome; Glass Ionomer Cements; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 37322456
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y