Keywords
Longevity
Dental Restorations
Permanent
Dental Restoration Failure
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To carry out an integrative literature review collecting findings on the longevity of dental amalgam, comparing them with composite resin. Methods: The PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL) and LILACS databases were used to search for scientific articles. For the literature search, the following keywords were applied: Amalgam, Dental Restorations, Survival, Longevity, Failure. All descriptors were combined with each other using the Boolean operator “AND” and following the description of the MeSH/DeCs terms. After applying the eligibility criteria, nine articles were selected. Results: Several properties influence the longevity of amalgam restorations, with survival and failure rates of amalgam restorations varying across studies, with disagreements over the superiority of composite resin or dental amalgam. The main cause of failures in restorations is secondary caries and, in some cases, only repair with amalgam in restorations appears as a solution instead of the complete replacement of the material. Final considerations: Knowing that amalgam is still present in the clinical practice of some professionals, as well as in the oral cavity of a large portion of the population, the replacement or repair of these restorations must be evaluated individually, without the bias of toxicity or release of mercury by the material.
References
AJIBOYE AS, et al. International Association for Dental Research policy and position statements on the safety of dental amalgam. Journal of Dental Research, 2020; 99(7): 763-768.
ALCÂNTARA ICG, et al. O futuro do amálgama na prática odontológica: o que o clínico precisa saber. Revista Tecnologia & informação, 2015; 2(2): 32-41.
ALEXANDER G, et al. Dentists' restorative decision‐making and implications for an ‘amalgamless’ profession. Part 1: a review. Australian dental journal, 2014; 59(4): 408-419.
ALLISON JR, et al. The effect of magnetic resonance imaging on mercury release from dental amalgam at 3T and 7T. Journal of Dentistry, 2022; 127: 104322.
BARATIERI LN, et al. Odontologia Restauradora: Fundamentos & Técnicas. 2ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Santos Editora LTDA, 2012; 761 p.
BERLIN M. Mercury in dental amalgam: a riskanalysis. Neurotoxicology, 2020; 81: 382-386.
BERNARDO M, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 2007; 138(6): 775-783.
BURITY EKT, et al. Alteração de cor das restaurações com resina composta. Revista Eletrônica Acervo Saúde, 2023; 23(3): e12166.
CAZZANIGA G, et al. Surface properties of resin-based composite materials and biofilm formation: A review of the current literature. American Journal of Dentistry, 2015; 28(6): 311-320.
CHAIN MC. Materiais Dentários. São Paulo: Artes Médicas, 2013; 159 p.
DE CENA JA, et al. Manutenção, reparo ou substituição de restaurações: uma reflexão necessária. OralSciences, 2016: 28-32.
DODES JE. The amalgam controversy: an evidence-based analysis. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 2001; 132(3): 348-356.
ESTAY J, et al. 12 anos de reparação de amálgama e resinas compostas: um estudo clínico. Operative Dentistry, 2018; 43(1): 12-21.
ESTAY J, et al.. Effect of refurbishing amalgam and resin composite restorations after 12 years: controlled clinical trial. Operative Dentistry, 2017; 42(6): 587-595.
ESTRADA M. ¿Es necessário laremoción preventiva de lasrestauraciones de amalgama antigua em boca? Fundamentos em sucomposición y manipulación (I). Avances em Odontoestomatología, 2018; 34(1): 25-35.
FERNÁNDEZ EM, et al. Survival rate of sealed, refurbished and repaired defective restorations: 4-year follow-up. Brazilian Dental Journal, 2011; 22: 134-39.
FRANCCI CE, et al. Harmonização do sorriso. Odontologia estética: os desafios da clínica diária. 1 ed. Nova Odessa: Napoleão, 2014. 436p.
JARDIM JJ, et al. Restorations after selective caries removal: 5-Year randomized trial. Journal of Dentistry, 2020; 99.
KIM K, NAMGUNG C, CHO B. The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 2013; 38(1): 11-20.
MALTZ M, et al. Cariologia: conceitos básicos, diagnóstico e tratamento não restaurador. 1 ed. São Paulo: Editora Artes Médicas, 2016. Cap 1, 144p.
MIGGIANO R. Longevidade das restaurações posterior com resina composta e amálgama. Instituto Universitário De Ciências Da Saúde, Portugal, 2017.
MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE. Do parecer técnico sobre novas orientações quanto ao uso do amálgama dentáriono Brasil Nº 6/2022-CGSB/DESF/SAPS/MS. BRASIL.
MOLIN C. Amalgam: fact and fiction. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 1992; 100(1): 66-73.
MONCADA G, et al. Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations. Operative dentistry, 2015; 40(1): 34-43.
MORAES MAS, et al. A história da resina composta na Odontologia: parte 1. Rev. CROMG. 2003; 72-77. [Cited March, 19 2023]. Available at: https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/biblio-855780
MORAES RR. O mito da remoção segura de amálgama e a “Odontologia Biológica”. [Cited March, 19 2023]. Available at: https://website.cfo.org.br/o-mito-da-remocao-segura-de-amalgama-e-a-odontologia-biologica/
NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Mercury, elemental;CASRN 7439-97-6. 1995. Washington (DC): US Environmental ProtectionAgency. [Cited March, 19 2023]. Available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0370_summary.pdf>Accessed in: feb. 02, 2023
ÖZER L. The Relation Between Gap Size, Microbial Accumulation and the Structural Features of Natural Caries in Extracted Teeth with Class II Amalgam Restorations: A Stereo-and Polarized Light Microscopic Study. Tese (Doutorado) - University of Copenhagen, 1997.
PEDRINI D, et al. Razões para substituição de restaurações em clínica integrada. Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clinica Integrada, 2009; 9(2): 211-215.
QVIST V, et al. Eight‐year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, 2004; 62(1): 37-45.
REZENDE MCRA, FAJARDO RS. Abordagem estética na Odontologia. Archives of Health Investigation. 2016; 5(1): 50-55.
ROCHA CKF, et al. Importância da estética do sorriso na autoestima. Brazilian.Journal of Health Review, 2021; 4(6): 25867-25876.
SHITSUKA C, et al. Rugosidade superficial das resinas compostas: estética e longevidade clínica. Revista da Faculdade de Odontologia-UPF, 2014; 19(2): 258-261.
SILVA BB, MALTZ M. Cárie secundária: uma revisão de literatura. Faculdade de Odontologia de Porto Alegre, 2004; 45(1): 29-33.
SILVA JMF, et al. Resinas compostas: estágio atual e perspectivas. Odontologic, 2008; 16(32): 98-104.
SILVA E NETO JMA, et al. Utilização de resinas compostas em dentes anteriores, 2021; 13(2): 1-7
SONCINI JA, et al. 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): 763-772.
VALLE VMF. Amálgama dental:presente e futuro. Tese (Doutorado) – Escola de Aperfeiçoamento Profissional, Associação Brasileira de Odontologia, Florianópolis, 2001, 43 p.
VAN NIEUWENHUYSEN JP, et al. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. Journal of Dentistry, 2003; 31(6): 395-405.
ZABROVSKY A, et al. Direct posterior restorations: A 13-year survey of teaching trends and use of materials. Operative Dentistry, 2018; 43(6): 273-79.