FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE OF AMALGAM OR COMPOSITE FOR POSTERIOR DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN STUDENTS OF ISLAMIC INTERNATIONAL DENTAL COLLEGE (IIDC)

R TAJ; M SHARAFAT; H NAWAZ; S ZAHRA; S RUBAB; U HASAN

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1081

Authors

R TAJ Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan
M SHARAFAT Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan
H NAWAZ Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan
S ZAHRA Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan
S RUBAB Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan
U HASAN Islamic International Dental College, Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1081

Keywords:

Composite, Amalgam, Dental students, Restorative materials, Patient preference

Abstract

Restorative materials such as composite and amalgam are widely used in dental practice. Various factors, including ease of use, handling, and patient preference, influence dental students' preferences for these materials. Understanding these factors is important for curriculum development and clinical practice in dental education. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the preference of dental students at Islamabad Institute of Dental Sciences (IIDC) between composite and amalgam for restorative procedures and to identify the factors influencing this choice. Methods: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted at IIDC Hospital. A total of 76 questionnaires were distributed to 3rd and final-year dental students. The data were collected and statistically analyzed using SPSS version 23. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and factors influencing material choice were analyzed. Results: Of the students surveyed, 90.8% preferred composite for its easier cavity preparation, while 9.2% favored amalgam. 61.8% of students considered composite easier to handle, whereas 38.2% believed amalgam was easier. 81.6% of students selected composite as their material of choice, and 53.9% considered composite a better substitute for amalgam. Meanwhile, 46.1% thought amalgam was a superior alternative to composite. Regarding patient preference, 84.2% of students reported that patients preferred composite, while 14.5% believed patients favored amalgam. Conclusion: This study's results indicate that most dental students at IIDC prefer composite over amalgam for posterior restorations. This preference is likely influenced by the ease of use, handling properties, and patient preference for composite. The clinical training environment of the dental institute may also play a role in shaping these preferences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ben-Gal G, Weiss EI. Trends in material choice for posterior restorations in an Israeli dental school: composite resin versus amalgam. Journal of dental education. 2011;75(12):1590-5.

Kemaloglu H, Pamir T, Tezel H. A 3-year randomized clinical trial evaluating two different bonded posterior restorations: Amalgam versus resin composite. European journal of dentistry. 2016;10(01):016-22.

Nomann N, Polan M, Jan C, Rashid F, Taleb A. Amalgam and composite restoration in posterior teeth. Bangladesh Journal of Dental Research & Education. 2013;3(1):30-5.

Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2007;138(6):763-72.

Lu H KH, Rasines Alcaraz MG, Schmidlin PR, Davis D. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. 2006(1).

Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dental materials. 2012;28(1):87-101.

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. Saudi Journal of Oral Sciences. 2014;1(1):30.

Christensen G, Child Jr P. Has resin-based composite replaced amalgam? Dentistry today. 2010;29(2):108, 10.

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

Gilmour A, Evans P, Addy L. Attitudes of general dental practitioners in the UK to the use of composite materials in posterior teeth. British dental journal. 2007;202(12):E32.

Shugars DA, Bader JD. Cost implications of differences in dentists' restorative treatment decisions. Journal of public health dentistry. 1996;56(4):219-22.

Bharti R, Wadhwani KK, Tikku AP, Chandra A. Dental amalgam: An update. Journal of conservative dentistry: JCD. 2010;13(4):204.

Sjögren P, Halling A. Survival time of class II molar restorations in relation to patient and dental health insurance costs for treatment. Swedish dental journal. 2002;26(2):59-66.

Roeters F, Opdam N, Loomans B. The amalgam-free dental school. Journal of dentistry. 2004;32(5):371-7.

Langworth S, Sällsten G, Barregård L, Cynkier I, Lind M-L, Söderman E. Exposure to mercury vapor and impact on health in the dental profession in Sweden. Journal of Dental Research. 1997;76(7):1397-404.

Mutter J. Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. 2011;6(1):2.

Lynch C, McConnell R, Wilson N. Teaching of posterior composite resin restorations in undergraduate dental schools in Ireland and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Dental Education. 2006;10(1):38-43.

Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Teaching the placement of posterior resin-based composite restorations in US dental schools. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2006;137(5):619-25.

Fukushima M, Iwaku M, Setcos J, Wilson N, Mjör I. Teaching of posterior composite restorations in Japanese dental schools. International dental journal. 2000;50(6):407-11.

Lynch CD, Frazier KB, McConnell R, Blum I, Wilson N. State-of-the-art techniques in operative dentistry: contemporary teaching of posterior composites in UK and Irish dental schools. British dental journal. 2010;209(3):129.

Doméjean-Orliaguet S, Tubert-Jeannin S, Riordan PJ, Espelid I, Tvoit AB, Tveit AB. French dentists' restorative treatment decisions. Oral health & preventive dentistry. 2004;2(2).

Espelid I, Cairns J, Askildsen JE, Qvist V, Gaarden T, Tveit AB. Preferences over dental restorative materials among young patients and dental professionals. European journal of oral sciences. 2006;114(1):15-21.

Mackert J, Wahl MJ. Are there acceptable alternatives to amalgam. CDA JOURNAL. 2004;32(7).

Vidnes-Kopperud S, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Factors influencing dentists’ choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2009;67(2):74-9.

Burke F, McHugh S, Hall A, Randall R, Widstrom E, Forss H. Amalgam and composite use in UK general dental practice in 2001. British dental journal. 2003;194(11):613-8.

Gordan VV, Mjör IA, Ritter AV. Teaching of posterior resin-based composite restorations in Brazilian dental schools. Quintessence international. 2000;31(10).

Hyson JJ. Amalgam: Its history and perils. Journal of the California Dental Association. 2006;34(3):215-29.