Alternative Direct Restorative Materials for Dental Amalgam: A Concise Review Based on an FDI Policy Statement

Abstract

Dental restorative procedures remain a cornerstone of dental practice, and for many decades, dental amalgam was the most frequently employed material. However, its use is declining, mainly driven by its poor aesthetics and by the development of tooth-coloured adhesive materials. Furthermore, the Minamata Convention agreed on a phase-down on the use of dental amalgam. This concise review is based on a FDI Policy Statement which provides guidance on the selection of direct restorative materials as alternatives to amalgam. The Policy Statement was informed by current literature, identified mainly from PubMed and the internet. Ultimately, dental, oral, and patient factors should be considered when choosing the best material for each individual case. Dental factors include the dentition, tooth type, and cavity class and extension; oral aspects comprise caries risk profiles and related risk factors; and patient-related aspects include systemic risks/medical conditions such as allergies towards certain materials as well as compliance. Special protective measures (eg, a no-touch technique, blue light protection) are required when handling resin-based materials, and copious water spray is recommended when adjusting or removing restorative materials. Cost and reimbursement policies may need to be considered when amalgam alternatives are used, and the material recommendation requires the informed consent of the patient. There is no single material which can replace amalgam in all applications; different materials are needed for different situations. The policy statement recommends using a patient-centred rather than purely a material-centred approach. Further research is needed to improve overall material properties, the clinical performance, the impact on the environment, and cost-effectiveness of all alternative materials.