British Society of Paediatric Dentistry: A policy document on the use of amalgam in paediatric dentistry

International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 233-238

  Rugg Gunn, A J ^a   Welbury, R R ^a   Toumba, J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL ALLOY; MERCURY;

ARTICLE; CHILD; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTISTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EUROPE; HUMAN; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED KINGDOM;

CHILD; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL CARE FOR CHILDREN; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EUROPE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MERCURY; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0035346152     PISSN: 09607439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-263X.2001.011003233.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Fayle SA, Welbury RR, Roberts J. Management of caries in the primary dentition. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2001; 11: 153-157.
2. Eley BM. The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. British Dentistry Journal 1997; 182: (247-249 293-297 333-338 373-381 413-417): 455-459. 183: 11-14.
3. Eley BM. The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. British Dentistry Journal 1997; 182: (247-249 293-297 333-338 373-381 413-417): 455-459. 183: 11-14.
4. Department of Health. Statement on the toxicity of dental amalgam. Committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. December, 1997.
5. Mathewson RJ. Restoration of primary teeth with amalgam. Dental Clinics of North America 1984; 28: 137-143.
6. Berglund A, Molin A. Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal of all amalgam restorations: the effect of using rubber dams. Dentistry Mat 1997; 13: 297-304.
7. Rotstein I, Dogan H, Avron Y, Shemesh H, Steinberg D. Mercury release from dental amalgam after treatment with 10% carbamide peroxide in vitro. OMOPORE 2000; 89: 216-219.
8. Smart ER, McLead RI, Lawrence CM. Resolution of lichen planus following removal of amalgam restoration in patients with proven allergy to mercury salts; a pilot study. British Dental Journal 1995; 178: 108-112.
9. McGivern B, Pemberton M, Theaker ED, Buchanan JHG, Thornhill MM. Delayed and immediate hyper-sensitivity reactions associated with the use of amalgam. British Dental Journal 2000; 188: 73-75.
10. Widström E, Forss H. Dental practitioners' experiences on the usefulness of restorative materials in Finland. 1992-96. British Dental Journal 1998; 185: 540-542.
11. United States Public Health Service. Dental amalgam: a scientific review and recommended public health service strategy for research, education and regulation. Final report of the sub-committee on risk management. Committee to coordinate Environmental Health and Related Program. Washington DC. US Government Printing Office 1993.
12. American Dental Association. Dental Amalgam: update on safety concerns. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. Journal of the American Dental Association 1998; 129: 494-503.
13. Wang NJ. Is amalgam in child dental care on its way out? Restorative materials used in children and adolescents in 1978 and 1995 in Norway. Community Dental Health 2000; 17: 97-101.
14. American Dental Association. Dental mercury hygiene recommendations. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. JADA 1999; 130: 1125-1126.
15. Quist V, Thylstrupp A, Mjör IA. Restorative treatment pattern and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontological Scandinavica 1986; 44: 343-349.
16. Holland IS, Walls AWG, Wallwork MA, Murray JJ. The logevity of amalgam restorations in deciduous molars. British Dental Journal 1985; 161: 255-258.
17. Roberts JF, Sheriff M. The fate and survival of amalgam and pre-formed restorations placed in specialist paediatric dental practice. British Dental Journal 1990; 169: 237-244.
18. Levering NJ, Messer LB. The durability of primary molar restorations: 1 Observations and predictions of success of amalgams. Paediatric Dentistry 1988; 10: 74-80.
19. Welbury RR, Walls AWG, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5 year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. British Dental Journal 1991; 170: 177-181.
20. Braff MH. A comparison between stainless steel crowns and multi-surface amalgams in primary molars. Journal of Dentistry for Children 1975; 42: 58-63.
21. Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G. Amalgam composite resin and glass ionomer cement in class II restorations in primary molars - a three year clinical evaluation. Swedish Dentistry Journal 1992; 16: 81-86.
22. Varpio M. Proximocclusal composite restorations in primary molars: a six year follow-up. Journal of Dentistry Child 1985; 52: 435-440.
23. Kilpatrick NM, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of a reinforced glass ionomer cement for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial. British Dentistry Journal 1995; 179: 175-179.
24. Forsten L, Karjarlainen S. Glass ionomers in proximal cavities in primary molars. Scandinavian Journal of Dentistry Research 1990; 98: 70-73.
25. McLean JW, Nicholson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Internation 1994; 25: 587-589.
26. Attin T, Vataschki M, Hellwig E. Properties of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials and two poly acid-modified resin composite materials. Quintessence International 1996; 27: 203-209.
27. Triana R, Prado C, Garco J, Garcia-Godoy F. Dentine bond strength of fluoride releasing materials. American Journal of Dentistry 1994; 7: 252-254.
28. Cortes O, Garcia-Godoy F, Boj JR. Bond Strength of resin reinforced glass ionomer cements after enamel etching. American Journal of Dentistry 1993; 6: 299-301.
29. Shaw AJ, Carrick T, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from glass ionomer and compomer restorative materials: 6 month data. Journal of Dentistry 1998; 26: 355-359.
30. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JMV. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary teeth: a multi centre study. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1997; 55: 255-260.
31. Papagionnoulis L, Kakaboura A, Pantaleon F, Kavvadia K. Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in class II restorations in primary teeth: a two year follow-up study. Paediatrics Dentistry 1999; 21: 231-234.
32. Mass E, Gordon M, Fuks A. Assessment of compomer proximal restorations in primary molars: a retrospective study in children. Journal of Dentistry Child 1999; 66: 93-97.
33. Roeters JJM, Frankenmolen F, Burgersdijk RCW. Clinical evaluation of Dyract in primary molars: 3 year results. American Journal of Dentistry 1998; 3: 143-148.
34. Marks LAM, Weerheijm KL, van Amerongen WE, Groen HJ. Dyract versus Tytin class II restorations in primary molars. Caries Research 1999; 33: 387-392.
35. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, Murray JJ, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. Compomer versus Glass-Ionomer cement in paired cavities in primary molars: final results after 42 months. British Dentistry Journal 2000; 189: 93-97.