A survey of amalgam use to guide dental education curriculums.
attitude of health personnel
attitudes
dental
education
health behavior
health education
Journal
Journal of dental education
ISSN: 1930-7837
Titre abrégé: J Dent Educ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8000150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
revised:
15
03
2023
received:
11
09
2022
accepted:
10
05
2023
medline:
4
9
2023
pubmed:
7
6
2023
entrez:
7
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To identify behavioral, preferential, and professional factors influencing the use of amalgam in private practices; and to compare the incidence of the placement of amalgam versus composite resin restorations in the province of Ontario and its pedagogical implications on dental curricula. Participants responded anonymously to a 23-question online survey about their current use of dental amalgam and composite resins as well as their opinions regarding both dental materials. The explanatory variables were associated bivariately with the outcome variables, and the most significant predictors were identified using the multivariate analysis. Higher percentages of amalgam use were reported among clinicians who trained in Canada only (P = .009), who graduated before 1980 (p = <.001) and who work outside private practice (p = <.001). Familiarity with amalgam was higher among clinicians who are female (p = <.001), older (p = <.001), trained only in Canada (p = .017), who graduated prior to 2000 (p = <.001), and who work in locations with populations over 100,000 (p = .042). Familiarity with composite resin was higher among clinicians who graduated more recently (p = .002). A higher percentage of females (p = <.001), younger clinicians (p = <.001), recent graduates (p = <.001), and clinicians who work in private practice (p = .043) suggested that over 50% of dental student training time be allocated to amalgam. Decreased amalgam use was reported by later dental graduates and private practitioners; this may be impacted by familiarity with dental amalgam. As amalgam remains a safe and effective dental material, its removal may not be prudent. Dental educators play a crucial role in the future of amalgam opinion and use.
Substances chimiques
Dental Amalgam
8049-85-2
Composite Resins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1284-1293Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Dental Education Association.
Références
Bharti R, Wadhwani KK, Tikku AP, Chandra A. Dental amalgam: an update. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13:204-208.
Milnar FJ. The evolution of direct composites. Aegisdentalnetwork.com. Accessed June 29, 2022. https://www.aegisdentalnetwork.com/cced/2011/02/the-evolution-of-direct-composites
1996 health canada position statement on dental amalgam. Government of Canada. Accessed June 29, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/reports-publications/medical-devices/safety-dental-amalgam-health-canada-1996.html
Gbadebo SO, Anifowose OO, Ogunrinde TJ. Trend of posterior teeth restoration at Ibadan, Nigeria. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2013;3(4):70-83.
Zabrovsky A, Mahmoud R, Beyth N, Ben-Gal G. Direct posterior restorations: a 13-year survey of teaching trends and use of materials. Oper Dent. 2018;43(6):E273-E279.
Aggarwal VR, Pavitt S, Wu J, et al. Assessing the perceived impact of post Minamata amalgam phase down on oral health inequalities: a mixed-methods investigation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(985). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4835-1
Fisher J, Varenne B, Narvaez D. Minamata convention and the phase down of dental amalgam. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96(6):436-438.
Kateeb ET, Warren JJ. The transition from amalgam to other restorative materials in the U.S. predoctoral pediatric dentistry clinics. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2016;5(4):413-419.
Alexander G, Hopcraft MS, Tyas MJ, Wong R. Dentists’ restorative decision-making and implications for ‘amalgamless’ profession. Part 3: dentists’ attitudes. Aust Dent J. 2016;61(4):502-513.
Bakhurij EA. Dentists’ perspective about dental amalgam: current use and future direction. Journal of Pulblic Health Dentistry. 2017;77(3):205-215.
Garvi J. ADA reaffirms that dental amalgam is ‘durable, safe, effective’ restorative material. ADA. Accessed July 21, 2022. https://www.ada.org/publications/ada-news/2020/september/ada-reaffirms-that-dental-amalgam-is-durable-safe-effective-restorative-material
Daniel WW. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences. 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
Moraschini V, Fai CK, Alto RM. Dos Santos GO. Amalgam and resin composite longevity of posterior restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1043-1050.
Skelvik KM. Review of Norwegian experiences with the phase-out of dental amalgam use. Accessed 9 April 2022. https://kudos.dfo.no/dokument/review-of-norwegian-experiences-with-the-phase-out-of-dental-amalgam-use?evalueringsportalen=1
Alhareky M, Tavares M. Amalgam vs composite restoration, survival, and secondary caries. K Evid Based Dent Pract. 2016;16(2):107-109.
Khalaf ME, Alomari QD, Omar R. Factors relating to usage patterns of amalgam nad resin composite forp osteiror restorations - a prospective analysis. J Dent. 2014;42(7):785-792.
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):1590-1595.
Al-Asmar AA, Al-Khatib KM, Al-Amad TZ, Sawair FA. “Has the implementation of the Minamata convention had an impact on the practice of operative dentistry in Jordan?”. The Journal of international medical research. 2019;47(1):361-369. doi:10.1177/0300060518802523
Erçin Ö, Berkmen B, Durukan E, Arhun N. “Awareness about dental amalgam among Turkish dentists and patients: a questionnaire and search engine based cross-sectional study”. International dental journal. 2020;71(2):113-121. doi:10.1111/idj.12610
Sammut R, Griscti O, Norman IJ. Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;123:104058.