Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33920968›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Is Dental Amalgam a Higher Risk Factor rather than Resin-Based Restorations for Systemic Conditions? A Systematic Review.

Gianni Gallusi, Antonio Libonati, Mario Piro, Virginia Di Taranto, Edoardo Montemurro, Vincenzo Campanella

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Applications of Antioxidants in Dental Procedures.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gianni GallusiDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0805-2660
Antonio LibonatiDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Mario PiroDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Virginia Di TarantoDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8441-2584
Edoardo MontemurroDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo CampanellaDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to confirm the hypothesis that patients with one or more amalgam restorations have an increased risk for systemic diseases rather than patients with resin-based restorations. DATA: The data search produced an initial 3568 total number of records. All titles and abstract were reviewed by five independent examiners, and only 36 records were selected for full text in depth examination. Out of these, only nine publications matched the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Knowledge) were searched up to June 2019. In addition, a manual search was carried out on journals related to this topic. STUDY SELECTION: All selected human clinical studies compared patients with dental amalgam restorations to patients with non-amalgam restorations on restorative material related diseases/health conditions with at least 50 patients and a reasonable follow up. The systemic effects of dental restorations were analyzed. As for any systemic effects, there was no difference between amalgam and composite restoration.

conclusionsWith the limitations of the few available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the matter, amalgam restorations, similarly to other modern resin-based materials, were not related to an increased risk of systemic diseases or conditions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: On the basis of the available RCTs, amalgam restorations, if compared with resin-based fillings, do not show an increased risk for systemic diseases. There is still insufficient evidence to exclude or demonstrate any direct influence on general health. The removal of old amalgam restorations and their substitution with more modern adhesive restorations should be performed only when clinically necessary and not just for material concerns. In order to better evaluate the safety of dental amalgam compared to other more modern restorative materials, further RCTs that consider important parameters such as long and uniform follow up periods, number of restorations per patient, and sample populations representative of chronic or degenerative diseases are needed.

Indexed as

dental amalgamdental restorationdiseasemercurysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33920968
PMCPMC8071234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.