ArticleBritish dental journal2026
Amalgam versus composite restorations: a cost-consequence analysis.
Article in British dental journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims Amalgam is being phased out globally by 2034. Under English NHS provision, amalgam is predominantly used to restore posterior teeth. A broad evaluation of the comparative costs and consequences of using amalgam versus various composite formulations to restore posterior permanent teeth in adults was therefore required to inform a phase-out.Methods Multiple research strands (a large clinician survey, a discrete choice experiment to obtain public values for relevant aspects of direct restorations, and a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis) alongside new data were synthesised. Costs and consequences to patients, funders and clinicians of using amalgam and direct alternatives over varying timeframes under English NHS provision were quantified in a cost-consequence analysis.Results Differences in tooth survival (4 years; 12 years non-discounted), patient valuation (£33), and lifetime cost to patients (£70 direct; £15 indirect), funders (£34) and clinicians (£83) favour amalgam over composite restorations in English NHS care.Conclusions Except for appearance, all other outcomes and costs favoured the use of amalgam over composites for the direct restoration of posterior teeth for all stakeholders. If amalgam is phased-out in the near future without fundamental change, there are significant implications for the most at need in society and the survival of NHS dental services.
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.