The Use of Restorative Materials in Primary Molars among Pediatric Dentists in Israel

Objectives: To assess the current choice of various restoration materials among Israeli pediatric dentists according to seniority and specialty. Study design: Participating dentists completed a 23-item questionnaire on their qualifications, type of practice and preference of restorative material. Results: Seventy-five dentists (average age 46.27±12.6 years, 58 females) participated. Forty-one were specialist pediatric dentists and 34 were general practitioners. Amalgam was preferred by 49.3%, followed by composite (41.3%), glass ionomer cement (5.3%) and compomer (4%). Only 13.3% of the dentists thought amalgam bears environmental and health hazards, compared to 49.3% for composite. Satisfaction was high for amalgam and composite, less for glass ionomer cements and least for compomer. General practitioners preferred amalgam (70.6%) while pediatric dentists preferred composite (51.2%), P < 0.003. Conclusions: Amalgam and composite were the materials of choice among the participating Israeli dentists. Most of them (86.7%) responded that amalgam does not possess any health issues. Their satisfaction with the restoration materials was highest for amalgam and composite, a choice significantly affected by whether they were in general practice (amalgam) or specialized in pediatric dentistry (composite)

Dental materials, dentist preference, children

1. Lazaridou D, Belli R, Krämer N, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Dental materials for primary dentition: are they suitable for occlusal restorations? A two-body wear study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent; 16:165-172. 2015.

2. Lazaridou D, Belli R, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U. Are resin composites suitable replacements for amalgam? A study of two-body wear. Clin. Oral Investig;19:1485-1492.. 2015.

3. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls JR. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials, 12 edn: W.B. Saunders Co. 2012.

4. Heintze U, Edwardsson S, Dérand T, Birkhed D. Methylation of mercury from dental amalgam and mercuric chloride by oral streptococci in vitro. Scand J Dent Res; Apr;91(2):150-2. 1983.

5. Peretz B. The Minamata convention on mercury and dental amalgam. Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim;31:60. 2014.

6. Yui KC. Dental amalgam phase-down. J Contemp Dent Pract; 15(4):i. 2014.

7. Zwicker JD, Dutton DJ, Emery JC. Longitudinal analysis of the association between removal of dental amalgam, urine mercury and 14 self-reported health symptoms. Environment Health; 13:95. 2014.

8. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Posterior composites: the future for restoring posterior teeth? Prim Dent J; 3:49-53. 2014.

9. Hilgert LA, de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugers NH, Frencken JE. Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? Dent Mater; 30:1172-1178. 2014.

10. Alexander G, Hopcraft MS, Tyas MJ, Wong RH. Dentists’ restorative decision- making and implications for an ‘amalgamless’ profession. Part 1: a review. Aust Dent J; 59:408-419. 2014.

11. Alexander G, Hopcraft MS, Tyas MJ, Wong RH. Dentists’ restorative decision- making and implications for an ‘amalgamless’ profession. Part 2: a qualitative study. Aust Dent J;59:420-431. 2014.

12. Gordon M, Gorfil C, Segal S, Mass E. Treatment policies among Israeli specialists in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatr Dent; 6:73-78. 2005.

13. Pair RL, Udin RD, Tanbonliong T. Materials used to restore class II lesions in primary molars: a survey of California pediatric dentists. Pediatr Dent;

26:501-507. 2004.

14. Barker AM, Mathu-Muju KR, Nash DA, Li HF, Bush HM. Practice patterns of general dentists treating children in Kentucky: implications for access to care. Pediatr Dent; 34:220-225. 2012.

15. Buerkle V, Kuehnisch J, Guelmann M, Hickel R. Restoration materials for primary molars-results from a European survey. J Dent; 33:275-281. 2005.

16. Tran LA, Messer LB. Clinicians’ choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J;48:221-232. 2003.

17. Roshan D, Curzon ME, Fairpo CG. Changes in dentists’ attitudes and practice in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatr Dent; 4:21-27. 2003.

18. Udoye C, Aguwa E. Amalgam safety and dentists’ attitude: a survey among a Subpopulation of Nigerian dentists. Oper Dent; 33:467-471. 2008.

19. Ylinen K, Löfroth G. Nordic dentists’ knowledge and attitudes on dental amalgam from health and environmental perspectives. Acta Odontol Scand; 60:315-320. 2002.

20. Widström E, Forss H. Safety of dental restorative materials: a survey of dentists’ attitudes. Proc Finn Dent Soc; 87:351-357. 1991.