ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2016
The Post-Amalgam Era: Norwegian Dentists' Experiences with Composite Resins and Repair of Defective Amalgam Restorations.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of an innovative self-cure bulk-fill composite compared to dual-cure and light-cure bulk-fill composite in posterior restorations: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Cariogenic Risk Modifies the Effect of Marginal Adaptation on Caries Adjacent to Posterior Composite Restorations: A Stratified Multivariate Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- The long-term oral health consequences of an amalgam phase-out.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Clinical Difficulties Related to Direct Composite Restorations: A Multinational Survey.International dental journal · 2025Article
- The current attitudes and practices of dentists in Australia towards composite repair: A cross-sectional survey study.Australian dental journal · 2025Article
- Dentists' Treatment Decisions Concerning Restorations in Adult Patients in North Norway: A Cross-Sectional Tromsø 7 Study.Caries research · 2025Article
- Dental Amalgam Phase-Down-Status, Alternatives, Strategies and Preparedness for Implementation: A Review.International journal of dentistry · 2025Review
- Knowledge on the Minamata Convention on Mercury and dental amalgam phase down, availability and selection of mercury-free restorative materials among dentists in Kenya: a cross-sectional study.The Pan African medical journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Biomechanical performance of resin composite on dental tissue restoration: A finite element analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Amalgam Phase-Down Part 2: UK-Based Knowledge, Opinions, and Confidence in the Alternatives.JDR clinical and translational research · 2022Article
- [Amalgam and alternatives-discussions on mercury reduction in the environment].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021Review
- Can removal of amalgam restorations reduce health complaints in patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms?Evidence-based dentistry · 2021Article
- Awareness about dental amalgam among Turkish dentists and patients: a questionnaire and search engine based cross-sectional study.International dental journal · 2020Article
- Assessing the perceived impact of post Minamata amalgam phase down on oral health inequalities: a mixed-methods investigation.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Replacing dental amalgam by mercury-free restorative materials; it's time to take action.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2018Article
- No evidence that bonding is needed for amalgam restorations.Evidence-based dentistry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amalgam was banned as a dental restorative material in Norway in 2008 due to environmental considerations. An electronic questionnaire was sent to all dentists in the member register of the Norwegian Dental Association (NTF) one year later, to evaluate dentists' satisfaction with alternative restorative materials and to explore dentists' treatment choices of fractured amalgam restorations. Replies were obtained from 61.3%. Composite was the preferred restorative material among 99.1% of the dentists. Secondary caries was the most commonly reported cause of failure (72.7%), followed by restoration fractures (25.1%). Longevity of Class II restorations was estimated to be ≥10 years by 45.8% of the dentists, but 71.2% expected even better longevity if the restoration was made with amalgam. Repair using composite was suggested by 24.9% of the dentists in an amalgam restoration with a fractured cusp. Repair was more often proposed among young dentists (p < 0.01), employees in the Public Dental Service (PDS) (p < 0.01) and dentists working in counties with low dentist density (p = 0.03). There was a tendency towards choosing minimally invasive treatment among dentists who also avoided operative treatment of early approximal lesions (p < 0.01). Norwegian dentists showed positive attitudes towards composite as a restorative material. Most dentists chose minimally- or medium invasive approaches when restoring fractured amalgam restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.