ArticleJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2023
Prevalence and mean number of teeth with amalgam and nonamalgam restorations, United States, 2015 through 2018.
Article in Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival Rates of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations from Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmalgam has been used for more than 150 years as a safe and reliable restorative material. The authors described the occurrence of amalgam and nonamalgam restorations in the United States in primary and permanent teeth across age groups and according to sociodemographic characteristics.
methodsThe authors used clinical examination data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2015-2018 for participants 2 years and older (n = 17,040). The authors estimated the prevalence and mean number of amalgam and nonamalgam restorations in primary and permanent teeth according to age groups (2-5 years, 6-11 years, 12-15 years, 16-19 years, 20-39 years, 40-59 years, 60-79 years, and ≥ 80 years), race and ethnicity, federal poverty guideline, education, and pregnancy status.
resultsThe prevalence of amalgam restorations ranged from 4% through 69%. Overall, amalgam restorations were more prevalent in children and adolescents from racial and ethnic minority groups and families at lower poverty levels and with lower education. The mean number of teeth with nonamalgam restorations was higher than those with amalgam restorations in primary teeth of children aged 6 through 11 years, permanent teeth of those 12 through 15 years and 20 through 39 years, and women aged 20 through 49 years, regardless of pregnancy status. The mean number of amalgam restorations was higher than that for nonamalgam restorations in older age groups.
conclusionsNonamalgam restorations were the most common in the primary teeth of children older than 5 years and in the permanent teeth of adults younger than 40 years. Amalgam restorations were more common in older adults. Amalgam and nonamalgam restorations were equally common in children younger than 5 years. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The study findings suggest a shift from amalgam to alternative restorative materials in the United States.
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.