The “Phase Down” of Dental Amalgam Restorations – What are the Criteria for Replacement and Indication?

Diogo de Azevedo Miranda; Lorena Esteves Silveira; Júlia Alves Schirm; Izabella Lucas de Abreu Lima; Flávio Ricardo Manzi

Authors

Diogo de Azevedo Miranda
Lorena Esteves Silveira
Júlia Alves Schirm
Izabella Lucas de Abreu Lima
Flávio Ricardo Manzi

Keywords:

Dental Materials, Dental Amalgam, Long Term Adverse Effects

Abstract

Objective: To guide professionals about the criteria for replacing amalgam restorations and inform them about the new guidelines regarding the use/indication of this (amalgam) material after the Minamata Convention – COP-4. Material and Methods: The articles were selected from the databases (PubMed, Scielo, Bireme), and relevant articles on the subject between the years 2003-2021 were selected. Recently, social media have been flooded with dental treatments that aim to perform restorations only with composite resins or other types of esthetic material and completely replace all dental amalgam restorations, irrespective of their time in place, size, and functionality. Results: Although improperly, it has been noted that this information reaches patients, and they are led to believe in the inaccurate data that is passed on, such as, for example, (that amalgam leads to) permanent contamination by mercury, causing systemic problems and the loss of the tooth. Conclusion: The "phase down" of amalgam in research and teaching has previously been observed in several countries worldwide; however, its use is still necessary given particular circumstances, which, theoretically, make it a material with exact indication.

References

Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Departamento de Saúde da Família. Coordenação-Geral de Saúde Bucal. Parecer técnico nº 6/2022-CGSB/DESF/SAPS/MS. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2022. [In Portuguese].

Food and Drug Administration. Information for patients about dental amalgam fillings. 2020. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/dental-amalgam-fillings/information-patients-about-dental-amalgam-fillings. [Accessed on 18 September, 2022].

Lauterbach M, Martins IP, Castro AC, Mario B, Henrique L, Amaral H, et al. Neurological outcomes in children with and without amalgam-related mercury exposure. Seven years of longitudinal observations in a randomized trial. JADA 2008; 139(2):138-145. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0128

Naghipur S, Pesun I, Nowakowski A, Kim A. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116(3):336-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.005

Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - A meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14(5):407-431. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28390

Estay J, Martín J, Viera V, Valdivieso J, Bersezio C, Vildosola P, et al. 12 years of repair of amalgam and composite resins: A clinical study. Oper Dent 2018; 43(1):12-21. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-313-C

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.06.005

Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89(10):e1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510376071

Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 2003; 31(6):395-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00084-8

Wahl MJ, Schmitt MM, Overton DA, Gordon MK. Prevalence of cusp fractures in teeth restored with amalgam and with resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 2004; 135(8):1127-1132; quiz 1164-5. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0371

Tyas MJ. Placement and replacement of restorations by selected practitioners. Aust Dent J 2005; 50(2):81-89; quiz 127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2005.tb00345.x

Mannocci F, Qualtrough AJ, Worthington HV, Watson TF, Pitt Ford TR. Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: Five-year results. Oper Dent 2005; 30(1):9-15.

Opdamÿ NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters MJ, Loomans BAC. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007; 23(1):2-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036

Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, 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. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0265

Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS. How long do direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales survive? Br Dent J 2009; 206(1):E2; discussion 26-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.1042

Opdamÿ NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BAC, Huysmans DNJM. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89(10):1063-1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510376071

Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - A meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14(5):407-431. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28390

Moraschini V, Cheung KF, Alto RM, Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43(9):1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.06.005

Naghipur S, Pesun I, Nowakowski A, Kim A. Twelve-year survival of 2-surface composite resin and amalgam premolar restorations placed by dental students. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116(3):336-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.005

Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. The ultimate guide to restoration longevity in England and Wales. Part 10: key findings from a ten million restoration dataset. Br Dent J 2018; 225(11):1011-1018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.1029

Worthington HV, Khangura S, Seal K, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 8(8):CD005620. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3

FDI World Dental Federation. Amalgam (Part 2): Safe use and phase down of Dental Amalgam. Adopted by FDI General Assembly September, 2021 in Sydney, Australia. Available from: https://www.fdiworlddental.org/amalgam-part-2-safe-use-and-phase-down-dental-amalgam. [Accessed on 18 September, 2022].

Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F, Gritsch K, Maurin JC, et al. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review. J Dent 2018; 68:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007

Rho YJ, Namgung C, Jin BH, Lim BS, Cho BH. Longevity of direct restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities: A retrospective study. Oper Dent 2013; 38(6):572-582. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-432-C

Schmalz G, Widbiller M. Biocompatibility of Amalgam vc Composite – A Review. Oral Health Prev Dent 2022; 20(1):149-156. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b2831749

Ástvaldsdóttir Á, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranæus S, et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – A systematic review. J Dent 2015; 43(8):934-954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001

UN Environmental Programme. Minamata Convention on Mercury (COP-4). Bali, Indonesia; March 2022. Available from: https://www.mercuryconvention.org/sites/default/files/documents/submission_from_organization/ADA_and_IADR_DentalAmalgam.pdf [Accessed on 15 September, 2022].

Barrett S. How “provoked” urine metal tests are used to mislead patients. 2019. Available from: https://quackwatch.org/related/Tests/urine_toxic/ [Accessed on 22 September, 2022].