“The great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

Dental amalgam has been maligned as a filling material, both because of its clinical properties and its alleged effects on systemic health, but reports of its demise have been premature. As of 2008, 57 percent of dentists were placing amalgam (March 2008 Dental Products Report Survey). A large 2011 survey showed that dentists in the United States place more dental amalgam than composite for first-time restorations in posterior teeth. Still, amalgam use has certainly declined over the last two decades, in part because of improved alternative filling materials and techniques in addition to declining rates of caries in children and young adults. When the automobile replaced the horse and buggy as the primary mode of transportation, there were few, if any, emotional attacks on horses, and no one called for a ban on horse and buggies – they were simply replaced with automobiles. Similarly, when composite resins were commercially introduced, they fairly quickly replaced silicate cements as the material of choice for anterior fillings. As was the case with automobiles replacing horses, there were few, if any, emotional attacks on silicate cements, and no one called for a ban on silicate cements – they were simply replaced with better materials. Compare this to dental amalgam. Never has a material been so vituperatively savaged as dental amalgam. And it’s not just the dental amalgam itself, but also the dentists who place amalgam. Maroon described anyone still using amalgam as “a fool... amalgam sucks!” 2 Harper stated that amalgam is “...an inferior restoration that I would not place in the mouths of my family or friends, much less into patients’ mouths.” Dickerson referred to the fact that dental amalgam is the most common restoration as not just unfortunate, but even criminal: “What is even more of a crime is that the most common restoration today is the same as it was 100 years ago. Where is the