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.

Preliminary phytochemical study of G. asiatica Linn. leaf showed water soluble extractive (19.08 %) more than alcohol soluble extractive (12.40%). It also demonstrated pH, moisture content, total ash, water soluble ash, acid in soluble ash and sulphated ash 6.48, 28.18%, 2%, 1.75%, 0.6% and 5.65% respectively.Qualitative chemical examinations of ethanol and aqueous leaf extracts of G. asiatica Linn. revealed the presence of Carbohydrates, Flavonoids, Steroids, Glycosides, and Tannins & Phenolics. Successive petroleum ether and chloroform extract showed presence of steroids and glycosides. Aminoacids and Alkaloids were absent in all the extract.