-
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 -
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 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jul 2022This study aimed to systematically review the literature to compare the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct resin composite and amalgam... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to systematically review the literature to compare the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct resin composite and amalgam restorations performed in permanent teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Lilacs, BBO, Web of Science, SciELO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, and gray literature were searched to identify longitudinal clinical studies related to the research question. No publication year or language restriction was considered. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model at a 5% significance level.
RESULTS
From 1224 potentially eligible studies, thirteen were selected for full-text analysis, and three were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There was no difference in the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct restorations (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.51-2.83), either for resin composite (p = 0.97) or amalgam (p = 0.51) restorations. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSION
Based on the very low certainty of evidence, the repair of direct restorations does not present a significant difference in the risk of failure when compared to replacements in permanent teeth.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Restoration repair is a procedure that is included in the minimal intervention principle for improvement of tooth longevity in that the risk of failure of repaired partially defective restorations in permanent teeth seems similar to that of replacement. Further studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Care; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentition, Permanent; Humans
PubMed: 35362754
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04459-0 -
Pediatric Dentistry Jan 2022There are several restorative modalities for molar hypomineralization, but there is no consensus on the best approach. The purpose of this review was to describe...
There are several restorative modalities for molar hypomineralization, but there is no consensus on the best approach. The purpose of this review was to describe restorative approaches applied to permanent first molars (PFM) with molar hypomineralization (MH). This review was registered (PROSPERO database CRD42017078336). Searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, and Cochrane Library databases and grey literature. From a total of 1,751 studies, 12 that compared restorative treatments for PFM with MH were included. The risk of bias of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The success rate was the primary outcome. The restorative treatment options were direct restorations with amalgam, glass ionomer cement, and resin-based composite as well as indirect restorations with stainless steel, porcelain, ceromer, and gold crowns. The restorative techniques, considering the type of isolation and the removal of caries and hypomineralization, vary between the study. There was also a lack of standard clinical criteria for restorative evaluation. The follow-up period ranged from six to 216 months. The success of direct restorations ranged from 86.3 to 100 percent. For indirect restorations, success ranged from 91.3 to 100 percent. There were multiple clinical protocols for MH. The studies presented heterogeneity in the restoration technique, time, and clinical criteria for restorative follow-up. Direct restorations with glass ionomer cement and resin-based composite could be the first choices for restoration. Further randomized clinical trials on a restorative treatment for MH are needed.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Molar; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 35232531
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination, and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination, and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole drilled into the crown of the affected tooth, namely orthograde root canal therapy. When it fails, retrograde filling, which seals the root canal from the root apex, is a good alternative. Many materials are used for retrograde filling. Since none meets all the criteria an ideal material should possess, selecting the most efficacious material is of utmost importance. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of different materials used for retrograde filling in children and adults for whom retrograde filling is necessary in order to save the tooth.
SEARCH METHODS
An Information Specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 21 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. We also searched four databases in the Chinese language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different retrograde filling materials, with the reported success rate that was assessed by clinical or radiological methods for which the follow-up period was at least 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Records were screened in duplicate by independent screeners. Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate. Original trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We followed Cochrane's statistical guidelines and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies, all at high risk of bias, involving 1399 participants with 1471 teeth, published between 1995 and 2019, and six comparisons of retrograde filling materials. - Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) versus intermediate restorative material (IRM): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to IRM on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.22; I = 0%; 2 studies; 222 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - MTA versus super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to Super-EBA on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 1 study; 192 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - Super-EBA versus IRM: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of Super-EBA compared with IRM on success rate at 1 year, with results indicating Super-EBA may reduce or have no effect on success rate (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; 1 study; 194 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - Dentine-bonded resin composite versus glass ionomer cement: compared to glass ionomer cement, dentine-bonded resin composite may increase the success rate of the treatment at 1 year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.59; 1 study; 122 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Same result was obtained when considering the root as unit of analysis at one year (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.09; 1 study; 127 roots; very low-certainty evidence). - Glass ionomer cement versus amalgam: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of glass ionomer cement compared with amalgam on success rate at one year, with results indicating glass ionomer cement may reduce or have no effect on success rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12; 1 study; 105 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). - MTA versus root repair material (RRM): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to RRM on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I = 0%; 2 studies; 278 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not assessed by any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present limited evidence, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion as to the benefits of any one material over another for retrograde filling in root canal therapy. We conclude that more high-quality RCTs are required.
Topics: Adult; Child; Crowns; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 34647617
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005517.pub3 -
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 -
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 -
Frontiers in Bioengineering and... 2021Systematic review assessing the association between oral microorganisms and corrosion of intra-oral metallic alloy-based dental appliances. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of...
Systematic review assessing the association between oral microorganisms and corrosion of intra-oral metallic alloy-based dental appliances. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched using keyword combinations such as microbes and oral and corrosion; microbes and dental and corrosion; microorganisms and oral and corrosion; microorganisms and dental and corrosion. Out of 141 articles, only 25 satisfied the selection criteria. s, sulfate-reducing bacteria, sulfate oxidizing bacteria, Veilonella, Actinomyces, were found to have a potential association with corrosion of intraoral metallic alloys such as stainless steel, titanium, nickel, cobalt-chromium, neodymium-iron-boron magnets, zirconia, amalgam, copper aluminum, and precious metal alloys. The included studies inferred an association between oral microorganisms and intra-oral metallic alloys-based dental appliances, although, it is vital to acknowledge that most studies in the review employed an simulation of the intra-oral condition.
PubMed: 33791285
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.631103 -
Journal of Environmental Health Science... Dec 2020Exposure to mercury is an important risk to dentists health. The aim of the present study was to assess the pooled mean mercury level (MML) in the urine, blood, nail,... (Review)
Review
Exposure to mercury is an important risk to dentists health. The aim of the present study was to assess the pooled mean mercury level (MML) in the urine, blood, nail, and hair of Iranian dentists (IDs) through the meta-analysis technique. Comprehensive and systematic searches were performed in main local databases including SID, Magiran, Iran medex, and ISC as well as internationally available databases including Embase, PubMed and Scopus for all the relevant studies up to 2018. In order to prevent bias in this study and identify eligible studies, various steps of the study was performed independently by two researchers. Out of 13 studies in the meta-analysis process which included 1499 IDs, the mean of the mercury level in the urine, nail, and blood was estimated to be 6.29 (95% CI: 2.61-9.97, I-square: 62.7%, P: 0.006), 3.54 (95% CI: 2.81-4.28, I-square: 0.0%, P: 0.968), 11.20 (95% CI: 2.28-20.13, I-square: 59.9%, P: 0.082), respectively. The mean mercury level (MML) in the biological samples of IDs was higher than the standard of World Health Organization (WHO). So, in accordance with Article 10 of the European Union Regulations (EUR), in the context of the Minamata Convention (MC) on Dental Amalgam (DA), in order to avoid the dangers of mercury exposure in dentists, it is necessary for Iran and other countries to approve laws and to implement a national plan to reduce mercury levels and replace the appropriate materials.
PubMed: 33312669
DOI: 10.1007/s40201-020-00558-w