Factors influencing dentists’ choices of restorative materials in Saudi Arabia
A web-based online cross-sectional study
Keywords:
Factors, Composite, Amalgam, Material, RestorativeAbstract
Background: There is a variety of restorative materials, from dental amalgam to the more recent introduction of resin and tooth-colored restorations, which makes choosing the most suitable restorative material a complex task for dentists. Dentists evaluate each case individually and make their selection decision based on several factors which have different degrees of clinical significance. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify the patients’ teeth, and dentist’s factors related to the selection of restorative materials among dentists working in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted using simple random sampling method in Saudi Arabia in 2018. The questionnaire was adopted from other studies, which were pretested using pilot studies to ensure reliability. The questionnaire consisted of demographic data, multiple-choice questions measuring the most commonly used materials and the reasons behind that, along with 5-point Likert-scale questions identifying the attitudes of dentists regarding the factors influencing their choices of restorative materials. The questionnaire was completed by 229 dentists. Using IBM-SPSS version, the data were analyzed in descriptive statistics and Chi square test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant in examining the study hypotheses. Results: Composite was the most commonly used material to restore primary carious lesions in class I, class II and class V. Conservative preparation was the main reason for using composite (55.9%). Esthetics was the main limitation of using amalgam (52%). The number of male dentists not using amalgam was significantly higher than their female peers (p=0.032). Conclusion: The trend of using composite is increasing in Saudi Arabia and has been reported worldwide in various conditions even in the more challenging circumstances such as large cavities and molars, mainly because its preparation is conservative. However, composite is still not preferred for patients with high caries activity and poor oral hygiene. Further research is required to negotiate more factors such as the material factors and socioeconomic status of the patient.References
Ben-Gal G, Weiss EI. Trends in material choice for posterior restorations in an Israeli dental school:
composite resin versus amalgam. J Dent Educ. 2011; 75(12): 1590-5. PMID: 22184598.
Halbach S, Vogt S, Köhler W, Felgenhauer N, Welzl G, Kremers L, et al. Blood and urine mercury levels
in adult amalgam patients of a randomized controlled trial: interaction of Hg species in erythrocytes.
Environ Res. 2008; 107: 69-78. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2007.07.005. PMID: 17767927.
Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin
composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry - European Section. Journal of Dentistry. 2014; 42(4): 377- 383. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.009. PMID: 24462699.
Sarah Handzel, BSN, RN. EU Bans Dental Amalgam Use in Children, Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women.
American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Statement on dental amalgam, rev. 2009.
Bohaty BS, Ye Q, Misra A, Sene F, Spencer P. Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors
influencing form and function. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013; 5: 33-42. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S42044.
PMID: 23750102, PMCID: PMC3666491.
Cenci M, Demarco F, de Carvalho R. Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization
techniques: relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent. 2005; 33(7):
-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.01.001. PMID: 16005800.
Burke FJ, McHugh S, Hall AC, Randall RC, Widstrom E, Forss H. Amalgum and composite use in UK
general dental practice in 2001. Br Dent J. 2003; 194(11): 613-18. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810258. PMID:
Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin?
Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. journal of dentistry. 2012; 40(9): 703-10. doi:
1016/j.jdent.2012.04.020. PMID: 22546263.
Iftikar Akbar. Knowledge and Attitudes of General Dental Practitioners Towards Posterior Composite
Restorations in Northern Saudi Arabia. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2015; 9(2): ZC61- ZC64. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/11843.5610. PMID: 25859528, PMCID: PMC4378811.
Makhija SK, Gordan VV, Gilbert GH, Litaker MS, Rindal DB, Pihlstrom DJ, et al. Practitioner, patient,
and caries lesion characteristics associated with type of material: findings from The Dental Based-Research
Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011; 142(6): 622-32. PMID: 21628683, PMCID: PMC3107519.
Kopperud SE, Staxrud F, Espelid I, Tveit AB. The Post-Amalgam Era: Norwegian Dentists’ Experiences
with Composite Resins and Repair of Defective Amalgam Restorations. International Journal of
Environment Research and Public Health. 2016; 13(4): 441. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13040441. PMID:
, PMCID: PMC4847103.
Fahad AK. Attitudes of dentists and interns in Riyadh to the use of dental amalgam. BMC. 2016. doi:
1186/s13104-016-2294-x. PMID: 27855718, PMCID: PMC5114813.
Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, van Dijken JW, Funegard U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M. Selection of dental
materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden. J Dent.
; 37(9):673-78. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.04.010. PMID: 19477572.
Mercury convention. Minamata convention on mercury. 2013.
Gilmour AS, Latif M, Addy LD, Lynch CD. Placement of posterior composite restorations in United
Kingdom dental practices: techniques, problems, and attitudes. Int Dent J. 2009; 59(3): 148-54. PMID:
Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, van Dijken JW, Funegård U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M. Selection of dental
materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden. journal
of dentistry. 2009; 37(9): 673-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.04.010. PMID: 19477572.
Khalaf ME, Alomari QD, Omar R. Factors relating to usage patterns of amalgam and resin composite for
posterior restorations – a prospective analysis. journal of dentistry. 2014; 785-92. doi:
1016/j.jdent.2014.04.010. PMID: 24769386.
Vidnes-Kopperud S, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I. Factors influencing dentists’ choice of
amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients. Acta
Odontologica Scandinavica. 2009; 67(2): 74-9. doi: 10.1080/00016350802577800. PMID: 19085213.
Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin?
Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. journal of dentistry. 2012; 40(9): 703-10. doi:
1016/j.jdent.2012.04.020. PMID: 22546263.
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-Year survival of composite vs. amalgam
restorations. Journal of Dental Research. 2010; 89(10): 1063-7. doi: 10.1177/0022034510376071. Epub
Jul 26. PMID: 20660797.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 KNOWLEDGE KINGDOM PUBLISHING
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.