Fall of amalgam restoration: a 10-year analysis of an Australian university dental clinic

BACKGROUND

The use of amalgam in Dentistry has decreased since the 1980s. This study aimed to (i) assess the time trend in the usage of amalgam and composite in posterior teeth at Griffith University Dental Clinic from 2010 to 2019; (ii) to test whether this trend varied according to the dental health provider.

METHODS

We analysed clinic records from 2010 to 2019. Prais-Winsten analyses were performed, and the average annual percentages change (AAPC) for amalgam and composite was estimated.

RESULTS

There were 397,013 procedures, including 80,995 direct posterior restorations. Amalgam use decreased from 12.9% in 2010 to 0.5% in 2019 among students, while composite use increased from 87.1% to 99.5% of posterior restorations. The annual increase of the composite was 1.4% per year for students, while amalgam decreased by 30.2% per year on average. A similar trend was noted among the dentists.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant decrease in the use of amalgam was observed over time for both students and professionals. This trend raises questions about curriculum reviews, focusing on the repair, maintenance and safe removal of amalgam while reinforcing the learning on Minimally Invasive Dentistry and composite restorations based on the patient's caries risk.

In Vitro Detection of Caries Around Amalgam Restorations Using Four Different Modalities

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of PTR-LUM (The Canary System, CS), laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent, DD), LED fluorescence (Spectra), and visual inspection (ICDAS II) to detect natural decay around bonded amalgam restorations in vitro.

Methods:

Seventeen extracted human molars and premolars, consisting of visually healthy (n=5) and natural cavitated (n=12) teeth were selected. For the carious teeth, caries was removed leaving some decayed tissue on the floor and or wall of the preparation. For sound teeth, 3 mm. deep cavity preparations were made and teeth were restored with bonded-amalgam restorations. Thirty-six sites (13 sound sites; 23 carious sites) were selected. CS and DD scans were performed in triplicate at 2, 1.5, 0.5, and 0 mm away from the margin of the restoration (MOR). Spectra images were captured for the entire surface, and dentists blinded to the samples provided ICDAS II scoring.

Results:

Canary Numbers (Mean±SE) for healthy and carious sites at 2, 1.5, 0.5, and 0 mm from the MOR ranged from 12.9±0.9 to 15.4±0.9 and 56.1±4.0 to 56.3±2.0, respectively. DD peak values for healthy and carious sites ranged from 4.7±0.5 to 13.5±2.99, and 16.7±3.7 to 24.5±4.4, respectively. For CS and DD, sensitivity/specificity for sites at 2.0, 1.5, 0.5, 0 mm ranged from 0.95-1.0/0.85-1.0, and 0.45-0.74/0.54-1.0, respectively. For ICDAS II, sensitivity and specificity were 1.0 and 0.17, respectively. For Spectra, data and images were inconclusive due to signal intereference from the amalgam restoration.

Conclusions:

Using this in-vitro model, CS and DD were able to differentiate between sound and carious tissue at the MOR, but larger variation, less reliability, and poorer accuracy was observed for DD. Therefore, CS has the potential to detect secondary caries around amalgam restorations more accurately than the other investigated modalities.