The paper reviews data on biological side-effects of dental materials on patients and also on personnel who routinely handle the materials. The incidence of adverse effects is low-in one study indicated to be 1:700 for all types of treatments. For individual types of materials, it will be significantly lower, and for restorative materials, probably in the 1 : 10,000 to 1:20,000 range. Allergic reactions are the most common type of adverse effect of dental materials. Lichenoid reactions on the oral mucous membrane adjacent to amalgam restorations are the most frequently encountered side-effects for a specific group of restorative materials.
Cost analyses were based on reports of longevity of different restorations and the cost of restorations at the time of placement. Amalgam restorative therapy was more cost-effective than composite restorations and gold castings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andreasen JO, Rud J., Munksgaard EC (1989). Retrograd rodfyldning med plast og dentinbinder. II: Histologiske undersRgelser af v & v sreaktionerp$ aber. Tandl&gebladet93:195-197.
2.
Ansi/Ada ( 1979). American National Standards Institute/ American Dental Association, Specification No. 41 on biological evaluation of dental materials .
3.
Axell T., Bjorkner B., Fregert S., Niklasson B. (1983): Standard patch test series for screening of contact allergy to dental materials. Contact Derm9:82-184.
4.
Axelsson P., Lindhe J. (1978). Effect of controlled oral hygiene procedures on caries and periodontal disease in adults. J Clin Periodontol5:133.
5.
Banoczy J., Roed-Petersen P., Pindborg JJ, Inovay J. (1979). Clinical and histological studies on electrogalvanically induced oral white lesions. Oral Surg48:319-323.
6.
Bentley C., Drake CW (1986). Longevity of restorations in a dental school clinic . J Dent Educ50:594-600.
7.
Bergenholtz G. (1989). Bacterial leakage around dental restorations-impact on the pulp. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Quality evaluation of dental restorations. Chicago (IL): Quintessence, 243-252.
8.
Bergenholtz G., Cox CF, Loesche WJ, Syed SA ( 1982). Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral Pathol11:439-450.
9.
Boksman L., Jordan RE (1986). A visible light-cured posterior composite resin: results of a 3-year clinical evaluation. J Am Dent Assoc112:627-631.
10.
Brannstrom M. (1985). Composite restorations: biological considerations with special reference to dentin and pulp. In: Vanherle G, Smith DC, editors. Posterior composite resin dental restorative materials. St. Paul (MN): Minnesota Mining & Mfg., 71-81.
11.
Brannstrom M., Nyborg H. (1971). The pleasure of bacteria in cavities filled with silicate cement and composite resin materials. Swed Dent J64:149-50.
12.
Brodin P., Røed A., Aars H., 0rstavik D. (1982). Neurotoxic effects of root filling materials on rat phrenic nerve in vitro. J Dent Res61:1020-1023.
13.
Christensen G. (1971). The practicability of compacted gold foils in general practice-a survey. J Am Acad Gold Foil Oper14:57-65.
14.
Christensen GJ (1989). Alternatives for the restoration of posterior teeth. Int Dent J39:155-161.
15.
Christensen R., Christensen G., Vogl S., Bangerter V. (1991). 2-year clinical comparison of 6 inlay systems (abstract). J Dent Res70:561.
16.
Crabb Hsm (1981). The survival of dental restorations in a teaching hospital. Br Dent J150:315-318.
17.
Davis JA (1987). Dental restoration longevity: a critique of the life table method of analysis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol15:202-204.
18.
Elderton RJ (1977). The quality of amalgam restorations. In: Allred H, editor. Assessment of quality of dental care. London: London Hospital Medical College, 45-81.
19.
Hensten-Pettersen A., Jacobsen N. (1990). The role of biomaterials as occupational hazards in dentistry. Int Dent J40:159-166.
20.
Hensten-Pettersen A., Jacobsen N. (1991). Perceived side effects of biomaterials in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent65:138-144.
21.
Jahn KR, Gonschorek E. (1986). Untersuchungen zur standzeit von fHllungen. Stomatol DDR36:124.
22.
Jokstad A., Mjor IA ( 1991). Replacement reasons and service time of class II amalgam restorations in relation to cavity design. Acta Odontol Scand49:109-126.
23.
Kaaber S. (1990). Allergy to dental materials with special reference to the use of amalgam and polymethylmethacrylate. Int Dent J40:359-365.
24.
Kallus T. (1984). Enhanced tissue response to denture base polymers in formaldehyde-sensitized guine a pigs. J Prosthet Dent52:292-299.
25.
Kallus T., Mjor IA ( 1991). Incidence of adverse effects of dental materials . Scand J Dent Res99:236-240.
26.
Kroeze J. (1989). Amalgam and composite restorations. Prevalence and need for replacement (thesis). Nijmegen (The Netherlands): Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen, 59.
27.
Langeland LK, Guttuso J., Jerome DR, Langeland K. (1966). Histologic and clinical comparison of addent with silicate cements and cold-curing materials. J Am Dent Assoc72:373-385.
28.
Leinfelder KF (1981). Composite resin in posterior teeth. Dent Clin North Am25:357-364.
29.
Lind P. ( 1988). Oral lichenoid reactions related to composite restorations . Acta Odontol Scand46:63-65.
Lutz F., Krejci L., Mormann W. (1987). Die zahnfarbene seitzahn-restauration. Phillip J Rest Zahnmed4:127-137.
32.
Maryniuk GA (1984). In search of treatment longevity-a 30 year perspective . J Am Dent Assoc109:739-744.
33.
Maryniuk GA, Kaplan SH (1986). Longevity of restorations: survey results of dentists' estimates and attitudes. J Am Dent Assoc112:39-45.
34.
Mjor IA ( 1991). Dental amalgam vs. posterior composite. Shigaku79:1128-1135.
35.
Mjor IA, Hensten-Pettersen A., Qrstavik D. (1985). Biological properties. In: Mjör IA, editor. Dental materials: biological properties and clinical evaluations. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, 21-68.
36.
Mjör IA, Hensten-Pettersen A., Skogedal O. (1977). Biological evaluation of filling materials. A comparison of results using cell culture techniques, implantation tests and pulp studies. Int Dent J27:124-129.
37.
Mjor IA, Jokstad A., Qvist V. (1990). Longevity of posterior restorations. Int Dent J40:11-17.
38.
Mjor IA, Medina JE (1991). Longevity of gold restorations (prelim. data) .
39.
Mjör IA, Wennberg A. (1985). Biocompatibility considerations of composite resins. A discussion paper. In: Vanherle G, Smith DC, editors. Posterior composite resin dental restorative materials. St. Paul (MN): Minnesota Mining & Mfg., 83-90.
40.
Moffa JP (1989). Comparative performance of amalgam and composite resin restoration and criteria for their use. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Quality evaluation of dental restorations . Chicago (IL): Quintessence, 125-133.
41.
Nuttall NM, Elderton RJ (1983). The nature of dental treatment decisions. Br Dent J154:363-365.
42.
Qvist J., Qvist V., Mjor IA ( 1990a). Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark . Acta Odontol Scand48:297-303.
43.
Qvist V., Qvist J., Mjor IA ( 1990b). Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand48:305-311.
44.
Qvist V., Stoltze K. (1982). Identification of significant variables for pulpal reactions to dental materials. J Dent Res61 :20-24.
45.
Qvist V., Stoltze K., Qvist J. (1989). Human pulp reactions to resin restorations performed with different acid-etch restorative procedure. Acta Odontol Scand47:253.
46.
Qvist V., Thylstrup A. (1989). Pulp reactions to resin restorations. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Quality evaluation of dental restorations. Chicago (IL): Quintessence, 291-299.
47.
Roulet J-F.,Herder S. (1990). Ceramic inlays: an alternative for esthetic restorations in posterior teeth. J FL Dent Assoc2:3c-6c.
48.
Simonsen RJ (1989). Criteria for placement and evaluation of pit and fissure sealants and preventive resin restorations. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Quality evaluation of dental restorations. Chicago (IL): Quintessence, 255-265.
49.
Smales RJ (1991). Longevity of cusp-covered amalagams: survival after 15 years. Oper Dent16:17-20.
50.
Stanley HR (1989). The relationship of bacterial penetration and pulpal lesions. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Quality evaluation of dental restorations. Chicago (IL): Quintessence, 303-322.
51.
Stanley HR, Bowen RL, Folio J. (1979). Compatibility of various materials with oral tissues: II. Pulp responses to composite ingredients. J Dent Res58:1507-1517.
52.
Thylstrup A., Bille J., Qvist V. (1986). Radiographic and observed tissue changes in approximal carious lesions at the time of operative treatment. Caries Res20:75-84.
53.
Weiland M., Nossek H., Schulz P. (1988). Zur klinischen bewertung der amalgam füllungstherapie der kavitatenklassen I & II. Stomatol DDR38:301-303.
54.
Wendel HA (1969). Adverse drug effect and the controlled clinical trial. Pharmacol Clin2:58-62.
55.
WennbergA., Mjor IA, Hensten-Pettersen A. (1980). Biocompatibility of filling materials-a correlation of test results. Proc Int Congr Impl Biomater Stomat . Kyoto (Japan), 84-94.
56.
Wilsnack RE, Meyers FJ, Smith JG (1973). Human cell culture toxicity testing of medical devices and correlation to animal tests. Biomater Med Dev Art Org1:543-545.
57.
Wilson AD, McLean JW (1988). Glass ionomer cement. Chicago (IL): Quintessence, 247-270.
58.
Wilson B. (1991). Dental fees: national and regional survey. Dent Management31:20-26.
59.
Wilson Nhf, Smith GA, Wilson MA (1986). A clinical trial of a visible light-cured posterior composite resin restorative material: three-year results. Quintessence Int17:643-652.
