[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/composite-restorations-are-superior-to-amalgam-restorations-appendix-ii\/#Article","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/composite-restorations-are-superior-to-amalgam-restorations-appendix-ii\/","headline":"Composite Restorations are Superior to Amalgam Restorations – Appendix II","name":"Composite Restorations are Superior to Amalgam Restorations – Appendix II","description":"The truth is that many composites are superior to amalgam. A 1994 study by the prestigious Clinical Research Associates group of Provo, Utah, examined 21 dental filling materials over a 3-year period. They ranked each according to wear, marginal adaptation (closeness of fit to the tooth), surface smoothness, wear of opposing teeth, breakage and color  [...]","datePublished":"2025-08-06","dateModified":"2025-08-06","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/author\/moore\/#Person","name":"International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology","url":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/author\/moore\/","identifier":1240,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/wp-content\/litespeed\/avatar\/bfc92e3fae46f1c852ba2a2990470c47.jpg?ver=1776187415","url":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/wp-content\/litespeed\/avatar\/bfc92e3fae46f1c852ba2a2990470c47.jpg?ver=1776187415","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"The International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/IAOMT-Schema-app-logo.jpg","url":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/IAOMT-Schema-app-logo.jpg","width":120,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/iaomt-logo2.jpg","url":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/iaomt-logo2.jpg","width":100,"height":100},"url":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/composite-restorations-are-superior-to-amalgam-restorations-appendix-ii\/","about":["Articles"],"wordCount":652,"keywords":["Dental Mercury Regulatory"],"articleBody":"The truth is that many composites are superior to amalgam. A 1994 study by the prestigious Clinical Research Associates group of Provo, Utah, examined 21 dental filling materials over a 3-year period. They ranked each according to wear, marginal adaptation (closeness of fit to the tooth), surface smoothness, wear of opposing teeth, breakage and color match. Amalgam was ranked 14th in overall strength, durability and effectiveness behind 11 composite filling materials and two porcelain\/ceramic materials. Ten of the top 11 materials were composites. The study also showed that recurrent decay and root canal therapy did not happen often enough on all materials combined to even be considered as significant.[1]Nonetheless, to this day, the FDA and American Dental Association (ADA) insist that composite resins are inferior to amalgam because they amalgams wear faster, have more recurrent decay and may increase the need for root canals. They still assert that \u201cDental amalgam fillings are strong and long-lasting, so they are less likely to break than some other types of fillings.\u201d[2] The Provo study, conducted over 25 years ago, demonstrated that all of their claims are untrue.A recent study conducted on over 76,000 patients confirmed this finding.[3] Further support is derived from a large retrospective cohort study that included 58 dental clinics with 440 dental units to examine failed dental restorations (650,000 patients). Failures in amalgam (17%) versus composite resin restorations (12%) between 2014 and 2021 clearly indicate that composite is superior to amalgam.[4]Banning amalgam fillings would not only address associated health risks but also improve dental outcomes and reduce long-term costs. Amalgam requires removal of healthy tooth structure and weakens teeth, often leading to cracks, root canals, or extractions.[5] Composite resin fillings, made of quartz or silicon powder in a resin matrix, are superior.[6]All dental schools teach composite placement, often dedicating more time to it than amalgam\u2014some no longer teach amalgam at all. Composite is the preferred restoration method, making technical concerns minimal.[7]Cost is not a barrier. Dr. Graeme Munro-Hall\u2019s report for the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry shows no price difference between amalgam and mercury-free alternatives (both around $0.50 per filling).[8] With rising mercury prices since the Minamata Convention, amalgam is expected to become more expensive, not to mention the added environmental and health costs.\u201cClinicians Report | Gordon J. Christensen,\u201d Clinician\u2019s Report, 1994, https:\/\/www.cliniciansreport.org\/. \u2191Center for Devices and Radiological Health, \u201cDental Amalgam – White Paper: FDA Update\/Review of Potential Adverse Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Mercury in Dental Amalgam,\u201d WebContent, accessed January 9, 2019, https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/medicaldevices\/productsandmedicalprocedures\/dentalproducts\/dentalamalgam\/ucm171117.htm. \u2191Mark Laske et al., \u201cLongevity of Direct Restorations in Dutch Dental Practices. Descriptive Study out of a Practice Based Research Network,\u201d Journal of Dentistry 46 (March 2016): 12\u201317, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jdent.2016.01.002. \u2191Guy Tobias et al., \u201cSurvival Rates of Amalgam and Composite Resin Restorations from Big Data Real-Life Databases in the Era of Restricted Dental Mercury Use,\u201d Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) 11, no. 6 (June 7, 2024): 579, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/bioengineering11060579. \u2191Tobias et al. \u2191Laske et al., \u201cLongevity of Direct Restorations in Dutch Dental Practices. Descriptive Study out of a Practice Based Research Network.\u201d \u2191Asher Zabrovsky et al., \u201cNext Generation of Dentists Moving to Amalgam-Free Dentistry: Survey of Posterior Restorations Teaching in North America,\u201d European Journal of Dental Education 23, no. 3 (2019): 355\u201363, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/eje.12437; C. D. Lynch, R. J. McConnell, and N. H. Wilson, \u201cPosterior Composites: The Future for Restoring Posterior Teeth?,\u201d Prim Dent J 3 (May 2014): 49\u201353; Elham T. Kateeb and John J. Warren, \u201cThe Transition from Amalgam to Other Restorative Materials in the U.S. Predoctoral Pediatric Dentistry Clinics,\u201d Clinical and Experimental Dental Research 5, no. 4 (2019): 413\u201319, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/cre2.196; Katariina Ylinen and G\u00f6ran L\u00f6froth, \u201cNordic Dentists\u2019 Knowledge and Attitudes on Dental Amalgam from Health and Environmental Perspectives,\u201d Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 60, no. 5 (January 1, 2002): 315\u201320, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/00016350260248319. \u2191Graeme Munro-Hall, \u201cA Comparison of Availability, Affordability, Effectiveness, Risks and Benefits of Dental Materials,\u201d Not sure, chrome-extension:\/\/efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj\/https:\/\/minamataconvention.org\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/submission_from_organization\/WAMFD_Comparison_report_DentalAmalgam.pdf. \u2191"},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Composite Restorations are Superior to Amalgam Restorations – Appendix II","item":"https:\/\/iaomt.org\/composite-restorations-are-superior-to-amalgam-restorations-appendix-ii\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]