DefinePK

Abstract

Introduction: The fight against amalgam is not new; it started in 1843 when the American Society of Dental Surgeons (ASDS) affirmed that using amalgam was illegal due to concerns about the toxic effects of mercury on patients and dentists, as well as its disposal in the environment.
Methodology: Two validated questionnaires, one for the dental staff and one specifically for the patients, were made necessary modifications, and disseminated to the dentistry colleges in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The surveys were primarily closed-ended. The first questionnaire was tailored specifically for dentists and included sociodemographic & practice characteristics like gender, years of service, specialty, information sources about the amalgam controversy, opinions regarding amalgam restorations, patient treatment needs, uses of amalgam & its substitutes, and the qualities and utility of both types of restoration materials.
Results: Out of the total sample (700), 75% had more than five years of experience, and 57% of the participants were men and 43% were women. Dentists demonstrate their opinions regarding the safety of dental restorations: 40% said amalgam was safe, 35% said amalgam was unsafe, and 25% were unsure. Sources of knowledge regarding the amalgam controversy.546 (78%) of patients were unaware of the negative consequences of mercury in dental amalgam, although 154 (22%) had heard of the detrimental effects of mercury or amalgam unfavourable effects.
Conclusion: While amalgam remains popular for its durability and cost-effectiveness, most patients prefer composite restorations for aesthetic reasons, despite limited awareness of mercury-related health risks.