ArticleJDR clinical and translational research2022
Amalgam Phase-Down Part 1: UK-Based Posterior Restorative Material and Technique Use.
Article in JDR clinical and translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- EFCD Expert Non-Consensus on Material and Technique Use for Direct Class II Composites With Guidance on Restoring Complex Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
- Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Restorations: Amalgam Dominates.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
- Amalgam versus composite restorations: a cost-consequence analysis.British dental journal · 2026Article
- Economic evidence on provider-level implications of direct posterior amalgam alternatives following the EU phase-out: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- The long-term oral health consequences of an amalgam phase-out.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Turkish dentist practice and opinions on diagnosing and treating deep caries lesions: a web-based survey.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Dental Amalgam Phase-Down-Status, Alternatives, Strategies and Preparedness for Implementation: A Review.International journal of dentistry · 2025Review
- Impact of refrigeration of different Resin composite restorative materials on the marginal adaptation in class II restorations.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Public Valuation of Direct Restorations: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of dental research · 2022Article
- Developments in resin-based composites.British dental journal · 2022Review
- Amalgam Phase-Down Part 2: UK-Based Knowledge, Opinions, and Confidence in the Alternatives.JDR clinical and translational research · 2022Article
- Placement of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Dental Practitioners in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Sectional matrix solutions: the distorted truth.British dental journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA European Union amalgam phase-down has recently been implemented. Publicly funded health care predominates in the United Kingdom with the system favoring amalgam use. The current use of amalgam and its alternatives has not been fully investigated in the United Kingdom.
objectivesThe study aimed to identify direct posterior restorative techniques, material use, and reported postoperative complication incidence experienced by primary care clinicians and differences between clinician groups.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary care clinicians through British dentist and therapist associations (11,092 invitations). The questionnaire sought information on current provision of direct posterior restorations and perceived issues with the different materials. Descriptive statistical and hypothesis testing was performed.
resultsDentists' response rate was 14% and therapists' estimated minimum response rate was 6% (total
conclusionAmalgam use is currently high in the publicly funded sector of UK primary care. Composite is the most used alternative, but it takes longer to place and is more costly. Composite also has a higher reported incidence of postoperative complications than amalgam, but time-consuming techniques, such as sectional matrix use, can mitigate against food packing, but their use is low. Therefore, major changes in health service structure and funding and posterior composite education are required in the United Kingdom and other countries where amalgam use is prevalent, as the amalgam phase-down continues. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: This study presents data on the current provision of amalgam for posterior tooth restoration and its directly placed alternatives by primary care clinicians in the United Kingdom, where publicly funded health care with copayment provision predominates. The information is important to manage and plan the UK phase-down and proposed phase-out of amalgam and will be of interest to other, primarily developing countries where amalgam provision predominates in understanding some of the challenges faced.
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.