ReviewOral health & preventive dentistry2022
Biocompatibility of Amalgam vs Composite - A Review.
Review in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of metal ion retention in tooth structure following the removal of dental amalgam restorations: an ex vivo study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Oral Epithelial Remodeling Associated with Long-Term Contact with Conventional Coronal Dental Amalgam Restorations: A Retrospective Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Hazard assessment of resin-based dental monomers: directions for greener dental material development.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- The influence of chlorogenic acid disinfection on the oral microbiota of alginate impressions.Journal of oral microbiology · 2026Article
- Association Between Genotoxic Effects of Ageing Dental Restorations and Micronuclei in Oral Mucosal Cells.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Effect of Ageing on the Mechanical Properties of Dental Resin with and Without Bisphenol A.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Correlation Between Polymerization Shrinkage and Filler Content for Universal Shade Flowable Resin-Based Composites.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- The Impact of Mercury from Dental Amalgams on Pregnancy and Childhood: A Health and Risk Assessment Evaluation.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Review
- Alternative Direct Restorative Materials for Dental Amalgam: A Concise Review Based on an FDI Policy Statement.International dental journal · 2024Review
- A Historical Perspective on Dental Composite Restorative Materials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Assessment of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effect of Modern Dental MaterialsActa stomatologica Croatica · 2023Article
- Applications of Antioxidants in Dental Procedures.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- N-Acetyl Cysteine-Mediated Improvements in Dental Restorative Material Biocompatibility.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Minamata Convention resulted in restrictions in the use of amalgam in daily dental practice. This opens up new discussions about the biocompatibility of amalgam, but also of composites as alternative materials. In the following review article, these issues will be discussed in more detail to provide dentists with a knowledge base for themselves and for communication with their patients. In addition to mercury in amalgam or monomers in composites, bisphenol A and nanoparticles generated during the grinding, polishing or removal of restorations must also be included in the biocompatibility evaluation. In laboratory tests, these substances cause toxic reactions, and bisphenol A also exhibits estrogen-like effects. However, it must be taken into account that the concentrations used in laboratory tests are much higher than in clinical practice. Thus, both amalgam and composite can be used in the general population. Nevertheless, for scientifically, politically and legally defined risk groups (e.g. dental personnel, allergic persons, pregnant or lactating women, children under 15 years of age, people with certain systemic diseases), indication restrictions and precautionary measures must be observed. The well-known amalgam discussion has taught us the importance of thorough and open risk communication with the patient.
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.