DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20210081

An overview of composite versus amalgam for dental restorations

Mohamed Salaheldin Gomaa, Turki Kulaib Jameel, Shahad Kamal Saeed, Lujain Jamal Alhadhrmi, Raghad Hani Qutub, Ruzana Bakr Sindi, Abdullah Fahad Al-Hussain, Layla Adnan Almousa, Nasser Salem Alshammari, Nawaf Nezar Kamal, Mohammed Abdulelah Alsharif, Nouf Rashed Alnabet

Abstract


When any loss of the tooth structure happens, it’s restoration using different filling materials is essential to compensate for the defective parts. Among the most commonly used dental restorative materials, dental amalgam & composite resins prevail. We have searched the relevant studies that compared composite resins and amalgam restorations to review them in different aspects including the clinical, economic, biocompatibility and patients’ perspectives. Regarding the clinical perspective, most of the reviewed investigations showed that composite resin restorations were associated with higher failure rates and developed dental caries more than restorations made by the amalgam alloys. There were no significant differences noticed between the two materials regarding the side effects as both caused nearly similar neurological and renal affection. Based on the findings from previous studies, we could only notice that some studies reported that microalbuminuria may be associated with composite resins. We have also found that patients’ satisfaction with the amalgam restorations was low due to the potential development of some side effects that were attributable to lead intoxication. In conclusion, we recommend that further investigations should be conducted.


Keywords


Dentistry, Composite Resin, Amalgam, Biocompatibility

Full Text:

PDF

References


Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Coch Database Systemat Reviews. 2014(3):Cd005620.

Conrads G, About I. Pathophysiology of Dental Caries.

Gomes AS, Abegg C, Fachel JM. Relationship between oral clinical conditions and daily performances. Braz Oral Res. 2009;23(1):76-81.

Paula JS, Leite IC, Almeida AB, Ambrosano GM, Pereira AC, Mialhe FL. The influence of oral health conditions, socioeconomic status and home environment factors on schoolchildren's self-perception of quality of life. Heal Qual Life Outcom. 2012;10:6.

Costa SM, Martins CC, Bonfim Mde L, et al. A systematic review of socioeconomic indicators and dental caries in adults. Int J Environment Res Pub Heal. 2012;9(10):3540-74.

Ferreira Zandoná A, Santiago E, Eckert GJ, et al. The natural history of dental caries lesions: a 4-year observational study. J Dent Res. 2012;91(9):841-6.

Nascimento MM, Gordan VV, Qvist V. Reasons for placement of restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dental Assoc. 2010;141(4):441-8.

Mo SS, Bao W, Lai GY, Wang J, Li MY. The microfloral analysis of secondary caries biofilm around Class I and Class II composite and amalgam fillings. Bio Med Cent Infect Disea. 2010;10:241.

Kelly PG, Smales RJ. Long-term cost-effectiveness of single indirect restorations in selected dental practices. Brit Dent J. 2004;196(10):639-43.

Mitchell RJ, Koike M, Okabe T. Posterior amalgam restorations--usage, regulation, and longevity. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(3):573-89.

Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dentist. 1997;25(6):459-73.

Lutz F, Krejci I. Resin composites in the post-amalgam age. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995). 1999;20(12):1138-1144.

Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(6):775-83.

Maserejian NN, Hauser R, Tavares M, Trachtenberg FL, Shrader P, McKinlay S. Dental composites and amalgam and physical development in children. J Dent Res. 2012;91(11):1019-25.

Hendriks FH, Letzel H, Vrijhoef MM. Composite versus amalgam restorations. A three-year clinical evaluation. J Oral Rehabilit. 1986;13(5):401-11.

Cunningham J, Mair LH, Foster MA, Ireland RS. Clinical evaluation of three posterior composite and two amalgam restorative materials: 3-year results. Brit Dental J. 1990;169(10):319-23.

Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations in multicentre clinical trial. J Dentist. 1989;17:S10-7.

Robinson AA, Rowe AH, Maberley ML. A three-year study of the clinical performance of a posterior composite and a lathe cut amalgam alloy. Brit Dent J. 1988;164(8):248-252.

Norman RD, Wright JS, Rydberg RJ, Felkner LL. A 5-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam. J Prosthet Dentist. 1990;64(5):523-9.

Kemaloglu H, Pamir T, Tezel H. A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: Amalgam versus resin composite. Europ J Dentist. 2016;10(1):16-22.

Barregard L, Trachtenberg F, McKinlay S. Renal effects of dental amalgam in children: the New England children's amalgam trial. Environment Heal Perspect. 2008;116(3):394-9.

Woods JS, Martin MD, Leroux BG. Biomarkers of kidney integrity in children and adolescents with dental amalgam mercury exposure: findings from the Casa Pia children's amalgam trial. Environment Res. 2008;108(3):393-9.

Woods JS, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. The contribution of dental amalgam to urinary mercury excretion in children. Environment Heal Perspect. 2007;115(10):1527-31.

Shenker BJ, Maserejian NN, Zhang A, McKinlay S. Immune function effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(11):1496-1505.

CADTH Health Technology Assessments. In: Composite Resin versus Amalgam for Dental Restorations: A Health Technology Assessment — Project Protocol. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Copyright © 2017 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.; 2017.

Mjör IA, Burke FJ, Wilson NH. The relative cost of different restorations in the UK. Brit Dent J. 1997;182(8):286-9.

Heintze SD, Faouzi M, Rousson V, Ozcan M. Correlation of wear in vivo and six laboratory wear methods. Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2012;28(9):961-73.

Jones LM. Focus on fillings: a qualitative health study of people medically diagnosed with mercury poisoning, linked to dental amalgam. Acta neuropsychiatrica. 2004;16(3):142-8.

Sjursen TT, Binder PE, Lygre GB, Helland V, Dalen K, Björkman L. Patients' experiences of changes in health complaints before, during, and after removal of dental amalgam. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2015;10:28157.

Mårell L, Lindgren M, Nyhlin KT, Ahlgren C, Berglund A. "Struggle to obtain redress": Women's experiences of living with symptoms attributed to dental restorative materials and/or electromagnetic fields. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2016;11:32820.