Amalgam and Composite Use among Dentists and Dental Interns in Saudi Arabia
Aim: The aim of this study was to detect the use of amalgam versus resin composite restorations placed in permanent posterior vital teeth among dentists practicing in Saudi Arabia and dental interns training in Saudi Arabia.
Materials and Methods: 318 patients aged ≥ 8 years were randomly selected and clinically examined for amalgam and resin composite restorations placed in permanent posterior vital teeth by dentists and by dental interns in Saudi Arabia. The restorations were placed in teeth preparations Class I and Class II. Also, bitewing and or periapical radiographs were used to define the depth of the cavity. The data obtained were documented in a patient examination form then statistically analyzed using Chi-Square Test or Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient.
Results: Composite was the predominant kind of restoration placed by dental interns, and dentists placed more composite restorations than amalgam ones. There was an insignificant relationship between the kind of restoration placed by dental interns (amalgam, composite) and the tooth type (maxillary / mandibular premolar, maxillary / mandibular molar), the class of tooth preparation, the cavity depth, the age of the patient, and the gender of the patient p> 0.05. However, there was a significant relationship between the kind of restoration placed by dentists (amalgam, composite) and the cavity depth p < 0.05. Also, dentists placed more composite restorations in maxillary first premolars and in young patients 8-29 years, while they placed more amalgam restorations in mandibular second molars and in older patients 41-50 years p < 0.05. There was an insignificant relationship between the kind of restoration placed by dentists (amalgam, composite) and the class of cavity preparation and the gender of the patient p > 0.05.
Conclusion: Both dentists and dental interns used composite restorative material more than amalgam, but dentists placed more amalgam restorations than dental interns. Dental interns mainly used composite.
Keywords: Amalgam, Composite, Class, Dentist, Depth, Intern, Type.
Bayne SC, Thompson JY. Biomaterials. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift Jr EJ, eds. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier; 2006:137-242.
Zimmerli B, Strub M, Jeger F, Stadler O, Lussi A. Composite materials: composition, properties and clinical applications. A literature review. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2010;120(11):972-979.
Roberson TM. Fundamentals in tooth preparation. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift Jr EJ, eds. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier; 2006:283-321.
Young DA, Nový BB, Zeller GG, Hale R, Hart TC, Truelove EL. The American Dental Association Caries Classification System for clinical practice: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(2):79-86.
Anusavice KJ. Present and future approaches for the control of caries. J Dent Educ. 2005;69(5):538-554.
Burke FJ, Cheung SW, Mjör IA, Wilson NH. Restoration longevity and analysis of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations provided by vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int. 1999;30(4):234-242.
Burke FJ, McHugh S, Hall AC, Randall RC, Widstrom E, Forss H. Amalgam and composite use
in UK general dental practice in 2001. Br Dent J. 2003;194(11):613–618.
Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(6):775-783.
Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent.
Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Directcomposite resin fillings versus
amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3).
Opdam NJ, Van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943-949.
Levin L, Coval M, Geiger SB. Cross-sectional radiographic survey of amalgam and resin-based
composite posterior restorations. Quintessence Int. 2007;38(6):511-514.
Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM, Dos Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1043-1050.
Forss H, Widström E. From amalgam to composite: selection of restorative materials and restoration longevity in Finland. Acta Odontol Scand. 2001;59(2):57– 62.
De Moor R, Delmé K. [Black or white—Which choice for the molars? Part 2. Which does one choose for the restoration of posterior teeth: amalgam or composite?]. Rev Belge Med Dent (1984). 2008;63(4):135-146.
McCracken MS, Gordan VV, Litaker MS, et al. A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(6):583-593.
Jacobsen P, ed. Restorative Dentistry: an Integrated Approach. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2008.
Gholampour S, Zoorazma G, Shakouri E. Evaluating the effect of dental filling material and filling depth on the strength and deformation of filled teeth. J Dent Mater Tech. 2016;5(4):172-180.
Parolo CF, Macarevich A, Juliana JJ, Maltz M. Amalgam versus resin composite for the restoration of posterior teeth: disparities between public clinical
practice and dental education in southern Brazil. Rev Fac Odontol Porto Alegre. 2011;52(1/3):33-37.
Terada RS, Maiolino R, Barbana MD, Costa MC, Damasceno SM, Fujimaki M. Beyond the
discourse of amalgam vs composite resin restorations. RGO Rev Gaúch Odontol. 2014;62 (2):137-142.
Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Trends in the placement of posterior composites in dental schools. J Dent Educ. 2007;71(3):430-434.
Pani SC, Al Abbassi MF, Al Saffan AD, Al Sumait MA, Shakir AN. Factors influencing Saudi dental students’ preference of amalgam or composite for posterior dental restorations. S J Oral Sci. 2014;1(1):30-36.
Alkhudhairy F. Attitudes of dentists and interns in Riyadh to the use of dental amalgam. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:488.
Al-Safadi R, Al-Safadi R, Al-Lowaim N, et al. Amalgam and composite use among dental students in Saudi Arabia. Int J Emerg Trends Sci Technol. 2019;6(8):6830-6836.
Copyright (c) 2020 International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.