Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34143251›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021

[Amalgam and alternatives-discussions on mercury reduction in the environment].

Roland Frankenberger, Julia Winter, Gottfried Schmalz

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Roland FrankenbergerAbteilung für Zahnerhaltungskunde, Med. Zentrum für Zahn‑, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde, Philipps-Universität Marburg und Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3, 35039, Marburg, Deutschland. frankbg@med.uni-marburg.de.
Julia WinterAbteilung für Zahnerhaltungskunde, Med. Zentrum für Zahn‑, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde, Philipps-Universität Marburg und Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3, 35039, Marburg, Deutschland.
Gottfried SchmalzPoliklinik für Zahnerhaltung und Parodontologie, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg, Deutschland.
Philipps University of Marburg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg · DEUniversity Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dental amalgam has been successfully used for the restoration of carious lesions for more than 180 years. It is clinically characterized by high longevity and low technique sensitivity. For decades, dental amalgam has been discussed in the public, especially due to its roughly 50% mercury content. Since the Minamata Convention was published in 2013 with the primary goal of reducing the anthropogenic mercury release into the environment, the previously muted amalgam discussion has received fresh impetus. Another considerable disadvantage of amalgam is its silver/greyish color, which simply no longer matches patients' esthetic demands.The present paper describes the basic problems with amalgam against the background of multiple biological, clinical, and health policy factors. Possible consequences of the Minamata Convention concerning legal regulations as well as the use of dental biomaterials and therefore also relating to the future national healthcare system are discussed. Finally, possible amalgam alternatives and the urgent need for biomedical research towards restorative dentistry are presented, embedded into the crucial question of whether we are actually conducting the correct debate.

Indexed as

MercuryDental AmalgamGermanyHealth PolicyHumansDental AmalgamMercuryAmalgamBasic careCariesEnvironmentEstheticsMercuryRestorative therapyToxicology

Identifiers

PMID34143251
PMCPMC8212278
OpenAlexW3166953808

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.