Abstract
Background: Many dental restorative materials are used in dental clinics, while in a new practice, many countries are trying to ban dental amalgam for many reasons. Dental mercury is the main issue for suspending the use of dental amalgam. Another restoration method, the composite restoration for posterior and anterior teeth for esthetic porous, became the alternative to amalgam.
Aim: To measure patient satisfaction with two different materials based on multiple criteria using an oral health impact profile (OHIP) form.
Method: This is a prospective study on two groups. The patients visiting the clinic with a vital posterior tooth indicated for restoration were requested to participate in the study. The first group received composite restoration of the posterior teeth. Contrarily, the second group underwent an amalgam restoration application. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the OHIP5 to assess different aspects of patient satisfaction. The patients were asked to fill out a form before starting the procedure, and after 4 weeks, the procedure was reported. The operators were requested to fill out their forms based on the procedure done to determine the participant eligibility criteria.
Results: Overall 64 subjects were involved in the study among them 35 participants who received composite restoration, 48.5% were female, whereas 51.5% were male. Under other conditions, the patients who underwent amalgam application were 29, and 41.4% were female. Based on the study results, the participants underwent before and after assessment and showed no demands for different aspects with the two different materials.
Conclusion: No significant differences using amalgam or composite restoration regarding appearance, functional, and psychological factors in the posterior teeth were noted.