ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2025
Awareness of Amalgam and Safe Removal Techniques Among Dentists in Turkey: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes of Dentists in Türkiye Regarding the 2034 Phase-Out of Dental Amalgam Under the Minamata Convention: A Cross-Sectional Study.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Dentists' Knowledge and Clinical Preferences Regarding Evidence-Based Restorative Material Selection in Türkiye: Implications for Clinical Practice and Healthcare Policy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMercury toxicity from amalgam restorations is discussed as both a physician-patient issue and an environmental concern. This cross-sectional descriptive study aimed to evaluate the awareness of dentists in Turkey regarding safe amalgam removal protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 42-question online survey addressing sociodemographic characteristics, educational background, and knowledge of amalgam, removal procedures and their alternatives was conducted between May and September 2024, reaching a sample size of 269 participants. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25.0 for Windows, and a P-value 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsParticipants reported a 97.2% rate of undergraduate amalgam training, including both theoretical and clinical components; however, only 23.6% were currently using amalgam in practice. Additionally, 39.7% stated their knowledge about safe removal was insufficient or uncertain, and just 45.6% expressed concern about mercury's environmental impact.
conclusionGovernments and professional organisations should actively promote environmentally responsible practices through strategies focused on education, awareness, and sustainability to protect public health and natural resources.
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.