Article Data

  • Views 817
  • Dowloads 148

Original Research

Open Access

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

  • Sigalit Blumer1
  • Benjamin Peretz1
  • Tal Ratson1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, the Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.3.199 Vol.41,Issue 3,May 2017 pp.199-203

Published: 01 May 2017

*Corresponding Author(s): Sigalit Blumer E-mail:


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

Cite and Share

Sigalit Blumer,Benjamin Peretz,Tal Ratson. The Use of Restorative Materials in Primary Molars among Pediatric Dentists in Israel. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2017. 41(3);199-203.


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.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.8 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time