References

Burke FJT. Attitudes to posterior composite filling materials: a survey of 80 patients. Dent Update. 1989; 16:114-120
Tomaszewska IM, Kearns JO, Ilie N, Fleming GJP. Bulk fill restoratives: to cap or not to cap – that is the question?. J Dent. 2015; 43:309-314
Lynch CD, Wilson NHF. Managing the phase-down of amalgam: part II. Implications for practising arrangements and lessons from Norway. Br Dent J. 2013; 215:159-162
Wilson NHF, Lynch CD. The teaching of posterior resin composites. Planning for the future based on 25 years of research. J Dent. 2014; 42:503-516
Opdam NJM, Bronkhurst EM, Loomans BAC Huysmans M-CDNJM. 12-year survival of composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:1063-1067

Minamata: two years on

From Volume 42, Issue 9, November 2015 | Page 801

Authors

F J Trevor Burke

DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS, FDS(RCS Edin), FDS RCS(Eng), FFGDP(UK), FADM

Professor of Primary Dental Care, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK

Articles by F J Trevor Burke

Article

Not many clinicians in the UK will have missed the publicity surrounding the Minamata Agreement, which was signed by the UK and over one hundred countries from all over the world in October 2013. This was a far reaching agreement to limit the use of mercury from all sources, including LED light bulbs, fluorescent tubes, fertilisers, thermometers and, of course, dental amalgam. The agreement intimated that the mercury limitation would commence within four years, and Annex A Part II dealt specifically with dentistry. Of course, an obvious way to cut down the use of dental amalgam would be to reduce the number of new cavities, but this is a laudable aim which the dental profession, worldwide, has been wrestling with, ever since GV Black, in the late 1800s, suggested that we should ‘soon be practising preventive rather than reparative dentistry’. A clause in the annex to the agreement mentioned the phasing down of mercury-containing restoratives. Two years on, it is timely to reflect how close we are to achieving this, given that two years is half of the suggested four! We have also agreed to ‘Promote the development of cost-effective and clinically effective mercury-free alternatives’, so how far down that road are we?

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available