Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials.

GMS health technology assessment Pub Date : 2008-11-13
Katja Antony, Dieter Genser, Cora Hiebinger, Friederike Windisch
{"title":"Longevity of dental amalgam in comparison to composite materials.","authors":"Katja Antony,&nbsp;Dieter Genser,&nbsp;Cora Hiebinger,&nbsp;Friederike Windisch","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Health political background: </strong>Caries is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. For (direct) restaurations of carious lesions, tooth-coloured composite materials are increasingly used. The compulsory health insurance pays for composite fillings in front teeth; in posterior teeth, patients have to bear the extra cost.</p><p><strong>Scientific background: </strong>Amalgam is an alloy of mercury and other metals and has been used in dentistry for more than one hundred and fifty years. Composites consist of a resin matrix and chemically bonded fillers. They have been used for about fifty years in front teeth. Amalgam has a long longevity; the further development of composites has also shown improvements regarding their longevity.</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>This HTA-report aims to evaluate the longevity (failure rate, median survival time (MST), median age) of direct amalgam fillings in comparison to direct composite fillings in permanent teeth from a medical and economical perspective and discusses the ethical, legal and social aspects of using these filling materials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic literature search yielded a total of 1,149 abstracts. After a two-step selection process based on defined criteria 25 publications remained to be assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The medical studies report a longer longevity for amalgam fillings than for composite fillings. However, the results of these studies show a large heterogeneity. No publication on the costs or the cost-effectiveness of amalgam and composite fillings exists for Germany. The economic analyses (NL, SWE, GB) report higher costs for composite fillings when longevity is assumed equal (for an observation period of five years) or longer for amalgam compared to composite fillings. These higher costs are due to the higher complexity of placing composite fillings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Due to different study designs and insufficient documentation of study details, a comparison of different studies on longevity of direct amalgam and composite fillings in posterior teeth is difficult. Apart from the difficulties in conducting a randomized, controlled long-term study comparing the longevity of direct fillings, the fact that composites and adhesives used in a study have often already been replaced by the next generation of the product at the time of study publication presents an additional problem. Not only the filling material, but also patient parameters and local, intraoral factors (e. g. localisation of the filling) as well as the treating dentist have an impact on the longevity of dental fillings. In evaluating economic studies, one has to refer to the heterogeneity of data on longevity in the medical evaluation. The only effect parameter used in the studies is longevity, other aspects (e. g. long-term functionality) are only referred to in discussions. Extensive counselling of patients regarding the selection of the appropriate filling material is important.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Amalgam fillings show a longer longevity than composite fillings. Two out of six systematic reviews conclude that the expected survival time of composite fillings can be comparable to amalgam fillings. However, these conclusions are based on the results of short-term studies which usually overestimate the longevity of filling materials. From an economic standpoint, amalgam is the more economic filling material compared to direct composite fillings in posterior teeth when considering longevity as the only result parameter. Other aspects than longevity need to be considered in individually choosing the appropriate dental filling material. For future studies aiming to compare the longevity of amalgam and composite fillings, a sufficient sample size and study period, preferably in the setting of a private dental practice, should be aimed for. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of amalgam and composite fillings should take the functionality of teeth over a longer time period into account, as well as patients' preferences. The rapid development of composite materials and adhesives make short term revisions of these conclusions necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":89142,"journal":{"name":"GMS health technology assessment","volume":"4 ","pages":"Doc12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/09/bc/HTA-04-12.PMC3011298.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health political background: Caries is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. For (direct) restaurations of carious lesions, tooth-coloured composite materials are increasingly used. The compulsory health insurance pays for composite fillings in front teeth; in posterior teeth, patients have to bear the extra cost.

Scientific background: Amalgam is an alloy of mercury and other metals and has been used in dentistry for more than one hundred and fifty years. Composites consist of a resin matrix and chemically bonded fillers. They have been used for about fifty years in front teeth. Amalgam has a long longevity; the further development of composites has also shown improvements regarding their longevity.

Research questions: This HTA-report aims to evaluate the longevity (failure rate, median survival time (MST), median age) of direct amalgam fillings in comparison to direct composite fillings in permanent teeth from a medical and economical perspective and discusses the ethical, legal and social aspects of using these filling materials.

Methods: The systematic literature search yielded a total of 1,149 abstracts. After a two-step selection process based on defined criteria 25 publications remained to be assessed.

Results: The medical studies report a longer longevity for amalgam fillings than for composite fillings. However, the results of these studies show a large heterogeneity. No publication on the costs or the cost-effectiveness of amalgam and composite fillings exists for Germany. The economic analyses (NL, SWE, GB) report higher costs for composite fillings when longevity is assumed equal (for an observation period of five years) or longer for amalgam compared to composite fillings. These higher costs are due to the higher complexity of placing composite fillings.

Discussion: Due to different study designs and insufficient documentation of study details, a comparison of different studies on longevity of direct amalgam and composite fillings in posterior teeth is difficult. Apart from the difficulties in conducting a randomized, controlled long-term study comparing the longevity of direct fillings, the fact that composites and adhesives used in a study have often already been replaced by the next generation of the product at the time of study publication presents an additional problem. Not only the filling material, but also patient parameters and local, intraoral factors (e. g. localisation of the filling) as well as the treating dentist have an impact on the longevity of dental fillings. In evaluating economic studies, one has to refer to the heterogeneity of data on longevity in the medical evaluation. The only effect parameter used in the studies is longevity, other aspects (e. g. long-term functionality) are only referred to in discussions. Extensive counselling of patients regarding the selection of the appropriate filling material is important.

Conclusions: Amalgam fillings show a longer longevity than composite fillings. Two out of six systematic reviews conclude that the expected survival time of composite fillings can be comparable to amalgam fillings. However, these conclusions are based on the results of short-term studies which usually overestimate the longevity of filling materials. From an economic standpoint, amalgam is the more economic filling material compared to direct composite fillings in posterior teeth when considering longevity as the only result parameter. Other aspects than longevity need to be considered in individually choosing the appropriate dental filling material. For future studies aiming to compare the longevity of amalgam and composite fillings, a sufficient sample size and study period, preferably in the setting of a private dental practice, should be aimed for. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of amalgam and composite fillings should take the functionality of teeth over a longer time period into account, as well as patients' preferences. The rapid development of composite materials and adhesives make short term revisions of these conclusions necessary.

牙用汞合金与复合材料的寿命比较。
卫生政治背景:龋齿是世界上最流行的疾病之一。对于龋齿的直接修复,牙色复合材料的使用越来越多。强制性健康保险支付门牙复合填充物的费用;对于后牙,患者需要承担额外的费用。科学背景:汞合金是汞和其他金属的合金,已经在牙科中使用了150多年。复合材料由树脂基体和化学粘合填料组成。它们在门牙上已经使用了大约50年了。汞合金寿命长;复合材料的进一步发展也显示出其寿命的改善。研究问题:本hta报告旨在从医学和经济角度评估直接汞合金填充物与直接复合填充物在恒牙中的寿命(失败率、中位生存时间(MST)、中位年龄),并讨论使用这些填充物的伦理、法律和社会方面的问题。方法:系统检索共1149篇摘要。在根据确定的标准进行两步选择程序之后,仍有25份出版物有待评估。结果:医学研究报告汞合金充填物比复合充填物寿命更长。然而,这些研究的结果显示出很大的异质性。没有关于德国汞合金和复合填充物的成本或成本效益的出版物。经济分析(NL, SWE, GB)报告说,与复合填充物相比,当假定寿命相等(观察期为五年)或更长时,汞合金的复合填充物的成本更高。这些较高的成本是由于放置复合填充物的复杂性。讨论:由于不同的研究设计和研究细节的文献不足,比较不同的研究对后牙直接汞合金和复合填充物的寿命是困难的。除了进行随机对照的长期研究比较直接填充物的寿命存在困难外,研究中使用的复合材料和粘合剂在研究发表时通常已经被下一代产品所取代,这一事实带来了另一个问题。不仅填充物的材料,而且病人的参数、局部的、口腔内的因素(例如填充物的位置)以及治疗的牙医都会影响牙齿填充物的使用寿命。在评估经济研究时,人们必须参考医学评估中寿命数据的异质性。研究中使用的唯一影响参数是寿命,其他方面(如长期功能)仅在讨论中提及。就选择合适的充填材料向患者提供广泛的咨询是很重要的。结论:汞合金充填体比复合材料充填体寿命更长。六项系统综述中有两项得出结论,复合充填物的预期存活时间可以与汞合金充填物相当。然而,这些结论是基于短期研究的结果,这些研究通常高估了填充材料的寿命。从经济的角度来看,当考虑寿命作为唯一的结果参数时,汞合金是比直接复合填充物更经济的后牙填充材料。在选择合适的补牙材料时,除了寿命外,还需要考虑其他方面。对于未来旨在比较汞合金和复合材料填充物寿命的研究,应该以足够的样本量和研究时间为目标,最好是在私人牙科诊所的环境中进行。在评估汞合金和复合材料填充物的成本效益时,应考虑到牙齿在较长时间内的功能,以及患者的偏好。复合材料和胶粘剂的快速发展使得这些结论有必要在短期内进行修正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信