Amalgam phase-out, an environmental safety concern: a cross-sectional study among general dental practitioners in Pakistan.

Background Amalgam has been the gold standard for restorations in posterior teeth. Mercury, a major component of dental amalgam, is considered an environmental pollutant. The Minamata Convention on mercury recomends a reduction in the use of mercury-containing products. Since Pakistan is a signatory to the Convention, the same amalgam phase-out limitations are implemented in Pakistan. Aims To identify and assess the use of amalgam and its waste management by dentists in Pakistan post-Minamata Convention guidelines. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in Lahore among 520 general dental practitioners in 2019. Results The sample size for the study was calculated as 500; the questionnaire was distributed among 550 dentists. Dental amalgam was used by only 41.6% of the dentists in their practice; 55.0% perceived it to be a health risk. Most of the dentists (76.3%) were unaware of the proper disposal protocols for dental amalgam and 76.5% were unaware of any guidelines regarding amalgam use and disposal. Conclusion Although there is a gap in knowledge among the dentists regarding amalgam disposal, dentists in Pakistan are reducing their use of dental amalgam in accordance with the guidelines of the Minamata Convention.

[1]  M. Shaikh,et al.  Motivational factors for pursuing dentistry as a profession in colleges of Karachi, Pakistan. , 2020, JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association.

[2]  A. S. Ajiboye,et al.  International Association for Dental Research Policy and Position Statements on the Safety of Dental Amalgam , 2020, Journal of dental research.

[3]  A. Mark Amalgam fillings: safe, strong, and affordable. , 2019, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[4]  Shuxiao Wang,et al.  Linking science and policy to support the implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury , 2018, Ambio.

[5]  W. Sohn,et al.  Dentists' perspective about dental amalgam: current use and future direction , 2017, Journal of public health dentistry.

[6]  Muhanad Alhareky,et al.  Amalgam vs Composite Restoration, Survival, and Secondary Caries. , 2016, The journal of evidence-based dental practice.

[7]  Mahmood A. Khwaja,et al.  Mercury poisoning dentistry: high-level indoor air mercury contamination at selected dental sites , 2014, Reviews on environmental health.

[8]  P. Schmidlin,et al.  Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  Tim K Mackey,et al.  The Minamata Convention on Mercury: attempting to address the global controversy of dental amalgam use and mercury waste disposal. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[10]  B. Horta,et al.  Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. , 2012, Journal of dentistry.

[11]  V. Rousson,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations - a meta-analysis. , 2012, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[12]  R. Mumtaz,et al.  Amalgam use and waste management by Pakistani dentists: an environmental perspective. , 2010, Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit.

[13]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. , 2007, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.