ArticleBMC oral health2026
The evaluation of dentists' stances concerning resin composite and amalgam as restorative materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the attitudes and preferences of dentists in Türkiye regarding the use of resin composites and amalgam as restorative materials, especially in light of the country’s recent participation in the Minamata Convention. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn online survey was conducted among 1265 actively practising dentists in Türkiye between 2021 and 2023. The survey included questions on demographic information, the use of amalgam and resin composites, and the dentists' views on the biological safety of these materials. The data were statistically analysed via the Mann‒Whitney U test and the Kruskal‒Wallis H test with SPSS 21.0 (Statistical Package Program for Social Science).
resultsThe study revealed that 50.2% of the participants still used amalgam, with a significant preference observed among those with more than 11 years of professional experience. However, aesthetic concerns, patient preferences, and mercury content were the main reasons for avoiding amalgam. Compared with their counterparts in the private sector and other regions, dentists working in the public sector and those in Eastern Anatolia were more likely to use amalgam. Concerns about the biological safety of both amalgam and resin composites were almost equally divided among participants.
conclusionDespite global efforts to phase out amalgam, it remains a necessary material in certain clinical situations in Türkiye. While resin composites are preferred because of their aesthetic properties, they also present challenges that must be addressed. As Türkiye transitions away from amalgam, it is crucial to ensure that dentists are adequately supported to adapt to changes while maintaining high standards of patient care. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The current study highlights the continuing use of amalgam in Türkiye despite global efforts to phase it out, emphasising the need for clinical guidance and education to support dentists in adapting to composite materials while maintaining effective patient care, especially in complex restorations.
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.