Patient Preference and Perceptions Regarding Amalgam and Tooth-Colored Restoration in an Iraqi Subpopulation

Volume 13 ,Issue 2 ,August 2026 ,Pages 32-43

Authors

Kale M. Mohammad Saeed 1 ; Darwn S. Abdulateef 1 ; Kazhan O. Abdarhman 1 ; Rozhnya P. Kamal 1 ; Hawzhen M. Mohammed Saeed 1 ; Shawbo M. Ahmed 1

1 Operative Dentistry and Endodontics Department, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq.

DOI logo 10.17656/sdj.10225

Keywords

Abstract

Objective: Patient perception increasingly influences the selection of restorative dental materials, especially as aesthetic expectations grow within modern dental practice. This study aimed to evaluate patient awareness, attitudes, and preferences regarding amalgam and tooth-coloured restorative materials in Sulaimaniyah City.

Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire distributed to patients attending various dental clinics. The questionnaire obtained demographic information, previous restorative experiences, aesthetic expectations, and perceptions of the functional, aesthetic, and biological characteristics of amalgam and composite resin materials.

Results: The results showed that most participants preferred tooth-coloured restorations due to their natural appearance and higher aesthetic compatibility. Amalgam was favoured by a smaller proportion of respondents who emphasized its durability, strength, and relative affordability. Younger patients and those with higher educational levels demonstrated stronger preference for aesthetic materials, while awareness of possible health concerns associated with amalgam varied considerably among participants.

Conclusions: Overall, the findings reflect a noticeable shift toward aesthetic-driven choices in restorative dentistry within the region. The study concludes that dental practitioners should acknowledge patient preferences during treatment planning and provide balanced, evidence-based information about the advantages and limitations of available restorative materials to support informed decision-making and enhance patient satisfaction.

پوختە

ئامانج:

هەست و تێڕوانینی نەخۆشەکان بە شێوەیەکی بەرچاو کاریگەری لە هەڵبژاردنی مادەکانی چاکسازی ددان دەکات، بەتایبەتی لە کاتێکدا کە داواکارییە جوانکارییەکان لە پزیشکی ددانى نوێدا زیاد دەبن. ئەم توێژینەوەیە ئامانجی هەبوو بۆ هەڵسەنگاندنی ئاگاداری، هەڵوێست و هەڵبژاردنی نەخۆش سەبارەت بە مادەکانی ئەمالگام و مادەکانی چاکسازیی هاوشێوەی ڕەنگی ددان لە شاری سلێمانی.

میتۆدۆلۆجی:

توێژینەوەکە بە شێوەیەکی وەسفی و بە ڕووی کاتدا (cross-sectional) ئەنجام درا، بە بەکارهێنانی فۆرمی پرسیارنامەی ڕێکخراو کە لە نەخۆشانی سەردانی کلینیکە جیاوازەکانی پزیشکی ددان وەرگیرا. پرسیارنامەکە زانیاریی دیمۆگرافی، ئەزموونی پێشوو لە چاکسازیی ددان، داواکارییە جوانکارییەکان، و هەست و بۆچوونیان سەبارەت بە تایبەتمەندییە جوانکاری و بایۆلۆجییەکانی مادەکانی ئەمالگام و کامپۆزیت ڕیزن کۆکردەوە.

ئەنجام:

ئەنجامەکان نیشانیدا کە زۆربەی بەشداربووان پەسەندیان بۆ چاکسازیی ددان بە مادەی هاوشێوەی ڕەنگی ددان بوو، چونکە ڕووخساری سروشتی هەیە و لە ڕووی جوانکارییەوە گونجاوترە. ئەمالگام تەنها لەلایەن بەشێکی کەمتر لە بەشداربووان پەسەند کرا، ئەوانیش جەختیان لەسەر بەهێزی، بەرگری و نرخی گونجاوی ئەو مادەیە کرد. نەخۆشانی گەنجتر و ئەوانەی ئاستی خوێندنیان بەرزتر بوو، میلانێکی بەهێزتریان بۆ مادە جوانکارییەکان هەبوو، هەروەها ئاگاداری سەبارەت بە نیگەرانییە تەندروستییەکانی پەیوەندیدار بە ئەمالگام لەنێوان بەشداربوواندا جیاوازی زۆری هەبوو.

کۆتایی:

بە گشتی، ئەنجامەکان گۆڕانکارییەکی دیار نیشان دەدەن بۆ هەڵبژاردنی مادە چاکسازییەکان لەسەر بنەمای جوانکاری لە پزیشکی ددان لە ناوچەکەدا. توێژینەوەکە کۆتایی بەوە دێنێت کە پزیشکی ددان پێویستە هەست و هەڵبژاردنی نەخۆشان لە کاتی دانانی پلانی چارەسەرکردنەوەدا لەبەرچاو بگرن، و زانیاریی هاوسەنگ و بەڵگەدار سەبارەت بە سوود و سنوورەکانی مادە چاکسازییە بەردەستەکان پێشکەش بکەن بۆ پشتگیری لە بڕیارگرتنی ئاگادارانە و زیادکردنی ڕەزامەندی نەخۆشان.

References

  1. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. The Lancet. 2007;369(9555):51-9.
  2. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent. 2012;40(9):703-10.
  3. Shah RJ, Malek FG, Agarwal P. A study of patient satisfaction with maxillary anterior teeth restorations and desirable esthetic treatment options. J Dent Med Sci. 2014;13(10):79-86.
  4. Kusumawardani A, Sukmasari S, Ab Halim N, Nhari RHBR, Habi SABA. Patient satisfaction towards composite and amalgam restorations in IIUM dental polyclinic. Scientific Dental Journal. 2020;4(3):93-6.
  5. Saeed HM, Kazzaz S, Babarasul D, Gharib DH, Abdulateef D. Decisions in Restorative Dentistry Based on Gender, Knowledge, and Experience. Sulaimani Dent J. 2025;12(3):42-50.
  6. Alreshaid L, El-Badrawy W, Kulkarni G, Santos MJ, Prakki A. Resin composite versus amalgam restorations placed in United States dental schools. Oper Dent. 2023;48(1):21-32.
  7. Taut C. Dental amalgam: is this the end? J Ir Dent Assoc. 2014;59(6):311-7.
  8. Riley JL 3rd, Gordan VV, Rindal DB, Fellows JL, Qvist V, Patel S, et al. Components of patient satisfaction with a dental restorative visit: results from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143(9):1002-10.
  9. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007;23(1):2-8.
  10. Dudeja P, Dudeja KK, Grover S, Singh H, Jabin Z. Pathway to mercury-free dentistry: an insight into past, present, and future. Eur Oral Res. 2023;57(2):60-7.
  11. Faraj BM, Mohammad HM, Mohammad KM. The changes in dentists' perception and patient's acceptance on amalgam restoration in kurdistan-iraq: a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(4):ZC22-5.
  12. Al-Hassiny A, Végh D, Bányai D, Végh Á, Géczi Z, Borbély J, et al. User experience of intraoral scanners in dentistry: Transnational questionnaire study. Int Dent J. 2023;73(5):754-9.
  13. Parkin Kullmann JA, Pamphlett R. A Comparison of Mercury Exposure from Seafood Consumption and Dental Amalgam Fillings in People with and without Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS): An International Online Case-Control Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2874.
  14. Bansal R, Jain A. An insight into patient’s perceptions regarding root canal treatment: A questionnaire-based survey. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020 Feb 28;9(2):1020-1027.
  15. Estrich CG, Lipman RD, Araujo MWB. Dental amalgam restorations in nationally representative sample of US population aged ≥15 years: NHANES 2011-2016. J Public Health Dent. 2021;81(4):327-30.
  16. Yang LC, Liu FH, Su NY, Wang YH, Yang PY, Chang YC. Decreased trends of using dental amalgam filling for decayed teeth in Taiwan from 1997 to 2013. J Dent Sci. 2023;18(1):400-06.
  17. Agrawal MG, Cirigiri S, Burande A, Goenka S, Aslam BM, Soni P. Evaluation of knowledge, approach & perception of the rural population regarding amalgam and tooth-colored composite material: A questionnaire-based study. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2022;8(2):254-58.
  18. Hervás García A, Lozano M, Cabanes Vila J, Barjau Escribano A, Fos Galve P. Composite resins: a review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2006;11(2):E215-E220.
  19. Magkert Jr JR. Dental amalgam and mercury. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1991;122(8):54-61.
  20. Bamise C, Oginni AO, Adedigba MA, Olagundoye O. Perception of patients with amalgam fillings about toxicity of mercury in dental amalgam. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13(3):289-93.
  21. Jebur N, Vinall-Collier K, Umair AA, Aggarwal VR. Dental amalgam teaching phase-out - a step too soon? Foundation trainees' experience of amalgam use in dental school compared to practice: a mixed-methods survey. Br Dent J. 2023;235(5):329-34.
  22. Mahmood H, Abd-alqader AM, jasm Al-Naimi R. Choice between composite and amalgam restorations according to dentists and patients perception. Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2020;20(1):1-17.
  23. Tin-Oo MM, Saddki N, Hassan N. Factors influencing patient satisfaction with dental appearance and treatments they desire to improve aesthetics. BMC Oral Health. 2011;11:6.
  24. Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Thornton-Evans G, Wei L, Bernal J. Prevalence and mean number of teeth with amalgam and nonamalgam restorations, United States, 2015 through 2018. J Am Dent Assoc. 2023;154(5):417-26.
  25. Doumani M, Habib A, Hatshan AR, Alnofiai SR, Alqahtani FM, Sadeka MA, et al. Saudi patients’ knowledge and awareness about mercury in dental amalgam. IOSR J Dental Medical Sci. 2017;16(8):68-70.
  26. Al-Nahedh HN, El-Hejazi AA, Habib SR. Knowledge and attitude of dentists and patients toward use and health safety of dental amalgam in Saudi Arabia. Eur J Dent. 2020;14(2):233-38.
  27. Adedigba MA, Nwhator SO, Afon A, Abegunde AA, Bamise CT. Assessment of dental waste management in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Waste Manag Res. 2010;28(9):769-77.
  28. Pooja S, Antony SD. Dentists attitude towards amalgam restoration and its safety measures-KAP survey. Drug Invent Today. 2019;12:9-12.
  29. Hörsted-Bindslev P. Amalgam toxicity—environmental and occupational hazards. J Dent. 2004;32(5):359-65.
  30. Brian HC, Lam OL, Jagannathan N, Botelho MG. A systematic review of amalgam bonded restorations: in vitro and clinical findings. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(8):1013-24.
  31. Erçin Ö, Berkmen B, Durukan E, Arhun N. Awareness about dental amalgam among Turkish dentists and patients: a questionnaire and search engine based cross-sectional study. Int Den J. 2021;71(2):113-21.
Statistics
  • Article view101
  • Downloads3
  • First online1 August 2026
  • Published at1 August 2026

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver