CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Dental materials and restorationsHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques

The dental amalgam toxicity fear: A myth or actuality

Open access
Pant, VandanaA, Rathore, Monika, Singh, Archana·2012·Toxicology International
DOI 10.4103/0971-6580.97191PMC PMC3388771
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Amalgam has been used in dentistry since about 150 years and is still being used due to its low cost, ease of application, strength, durability, and bacteriostatic effect. When aesthetics is not a concern it can be used in individuals of all ages, in stress bearing areas, foundation for cast-metal and ceramic restorations and poor oral hygiene conditions. Besides all, it has other advantages like if placed under ideal conditions, it is more durable and long lasting and least technique sensitive of all restorative materials, but, concern has been raised that amalgam causes mercury toxicity. Mercury is found in the earth's crust and is ubiquitous in the environment, so even without amalgam restorations everyone is exposed to small but measurable amount of mercury in blood and urine. Dental amalgam restorations may raise these levels slightly, but this has no practical or clinical significance. The main exposure to mercury from dental amalgam occurs during placement or removal of restoration in the tooth. Once the reaction is complete less amount of mercury is released, and that is far below the current health standard. Though amalgam is capable of producing delayed hypersensitivity reactions in some individuals, if the recommended mercury hygiene procedures are followed the risks of adverse health effects could be minimized. For this review the electronic databases and PubMed were used as data sources and have been evaluated to produce the facts regarding amalgam's safety and toxicity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/0971-6580.97191

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These mercury-containing multicompound medicines reflect the power, or the potentiated capacity to heal diseases intractable to other agents.

    “These mercury-containing multicompound medicines reflect the power, or the potentiated capacity to heal diseases intractable to other agents.$^{3}$^{5}”

    From A Physician’s View on Legal Aspects of the Contemporary Medical Use of Mercury in Germany (2013) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Introduction’s sections on amalgam composition and mercury exposure discuss dental restorations, not mercury-containing multicompound medicines. Searches for potentiated healing capacity and treatment of otherwise intractable diseases found no passage addressing that claim. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. [1]Berry TG Summit JB Chung AK Osborne JW Amalgam at the new millennium J Am Dent Assoc 1998 129 1547 56 9818572
  2. [2]Dunne SM Grainsford ID Wilson NH Current materials and techniques for direct restorations in posterior teeth. Part 1: Silver amalgam Int Dent J 1997 47 123 36 9448798
  3. [3]Brownawell AM Berent S Brent RL Bruckner JV Doull J Gershwin EM The potential adverse health effects of dental amalgam Toxicol Rev 2005 24 1 10 16042501
  4. [4]Marshall SJ Grayson W Marshall JR Anusavice KJ Philips Science of Dental Materials 2006 11th ed India Elsevier Sciences 499 500
  5. [5]Eames WB Preparation and condensation of amalgam with a low mercuryalloy ratio J Am Dent Assoc 1959 58 78 83 13640864
  6. [8]Roberson TM Heymann HO Swift EJ Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry 2006 5th ed Missouri Mosby Inc 151 64
  7. [9]American Society of Dental Surgeons 1”American Journal of Dental Science 1845 Massachusetts, U.S Harvard University 170
  8. [10]Molin C Amalgam--fact and fiction Scand J Dent Res 1992 100 66 73 1557606
  9. [13]Hahn LJ Kloiber R Leininger RW Vimy MJ Lorscheider FL Whole-body imaging of the distribution of mercury released from dental fillings into monkey tissues FASEB J 1990 4 3256 60 2227216
  10. [14]Takahashi Y Tsuruta S Arimoto M Tanaka H Yoshida M Placental transfer of mercury in pregnant rats which received dental amalgam rstorations Toxicology 2003 185 23 33 12505442
  11. [15]Brune D Gjerdet N Paulsen G Gastrointestinal and in vitro release of copper, cadmium, indium, mercury and zinc from conventional and copper-rich amalgams Scand J Dent Res 1983 91 66 71 6573763
  12. [16]Berglund A Estimation by a 24-hour study of the daily dose of intra-oral mercury vapour inhaled after release from dental amalgam J Dent Res 1990 69 1646 51 2212208
  13. [17]Berdouses E Vaidyanathan TK Dastane A Weisel C Houpt M Shey Z Mercury release from dental amalgams: an in vitro study under controlled chewing and brushing in an artificial mouth J Dent Res 1995 74 1185 93 7790596
  14. [18]Berglund A An in vitro and in vivo study of the release of mercury vapor from different types of amalgam alloys J Dent Res 1993 72 939 46 8501292
  15. [19]Berglund M Lind B Björnberg KA Palm B Einarsson O Vahter M Inter-individual variations of human mercury exposure biomarkers: a cross-sectional assessment Environ Health 2005 4 20 16202128 PMC1262739
  16. [20]Morton J Mason HJ Ritchie KA White M Comparison of hair, nails and urine for biological monitoring of low level inorganic mercury exposure in dental workers Biomarkers 2004 9 47 55 15204310
  17. [21]Luglie PF Campus G Chessa G Spano G Capobianco G Fadda GM Effect of amalgam fillings on the mercury concentration in human amniotic fluid Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005 271 138 42 14689312
  18. [22]Palkovicova L Ursinyova M Masanova V Yu Z Hertz-Picciotto I Maternal amalgam dental fillings as the source of mercury exposure in developing fetus and newborn J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2008 18 326 31 17851449
  19. [23]Hujoel PP Lydon-Rochelle M Bollen AM Woods JS Geurtsen W del Aguila MA Mercury exposure from dental filling placement during pregnancy and low birth weight risk Am J Epidemiol 2005 161 734 40 15800265
  20. [24]Daniels JL Rowland AS Longnecker MP Crawford P Golding J ALSPAC Study Team Maternal dental history, child's birth outcome and early cognitive development Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007 21 448 57 17697075 PMC3659800
  21. [25]Bellinger DC Trachtenberg F Barregard L Tavares M Cernichiari E Daniel D Neuropsychological and renal effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial JAMA 2006 295 1775 83 16622139
  22. [26]Bellinger DC Daniel D Trachtenberg F Tavares M McKinlay S Dental amalgam restorations and children's neuropsychological function: the New England Children's Amalgam Trial Environ Health Perspect 2007 115 440 6 17431496 PMC1849920
  23. [27]Bellinger DC Trachtenberg F Daniel D Zhang A Tavares MA McKinlay S A dose-effect analysis of children's exposure to dental amalgam and neuropsychological function: the New England Children's Amalgam Trial J Am Dent Assoc 2007 138 1210 6 17785386
  24. [28]Bellinger DC Trachtenberg F Zhang A Tavares M Daniel D McKinlay S Dental amalgam and psychosocial status: the New England Children's Amalgam Trial J Dent Res 2008 87 470 4 18434579 PMC2741096
  25. [29]Kingman A Albers JW Arezzo JC Garabrant DH Michalek JE Amalgam exposure and neurological function Neurotoxicology 2005 26 241 55 15713345
  26. [30]Barregard L Trachtenberg F McKinlay S Renal effects of dental amalgam in children: the New England children's amalgam trial Environ Health Perspect 2008 116 394 9 18335109 PMC2265055
  27. [31]DeRouen TA Martin MD Leroux BG Townes BD Woods JS Leitão J Neurobehavioral effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial JAMA 2006 295 1784 92 16622140
  28. [32]Lauterbach M Martins IP Castro-Caldas A Bernardo M Luis H Amaral H Neurological outcomes in children with and without amalgam-related mercury exposure: seven years of longitudinal observations in a randomized trial J Am Dent Assoc 2008 139 138 45 18245680
  29. [33]Woods JS Martin MD Leroux BG DeRouen TA Leitão JG Bernardo MF The contribution of dental amalgam to urinary mercury excretion in children Environ Health Perspect 2007 115 1527 31 17938746 PMC2022658
  30. [34]Dunn JE Trachtenberg FL Barregard L Bellinger D McKinlay S Scalp hair and urine mercury content of children in the Northeast United States: the New England Children's Amalgam Trial Environ Res 2008 107 79 88 17961541 PMC2464356
  31. [35]Levy M Schwartz S Dijak M Weber JP Tardif R Rouah F Childhood urine mercury excretion: dental amalgam and fish consumption as exposure factors Environ Res 2004 94 283 90 15016596
  32. [36]Bates MN Fawcett J Garrett N Cutress T Kjellstrom T Health effects of dental amalgam exposure: a retrospective cohort study Int J Epidemiol 2004 33 894 902 15155698
  33. [37]Bailer J Rist F Rudolf A Staehle HJ Eickholz P Triebig G Adverse health effects related to mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings: toxicological or psychological causes? Psychol Med 2001 31 255 63 11232913
  34. [38]Aminzadeh KK Etminan M Dental amalgam and multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Public Health Dent 2007 67 64 6 17436982
  35. [39]Halbach S Vogt S Köhler W Felgenhauer N Welzl G Kremers L Blood and urine mercury levels in adult amalgam patients of a randomized controlled trial: interaction of Hg species in erythrocytes Environ Res 2008 107 69 78 17767927
  36. [40]Smart ER McLead RI Lawrence CM Resolution of lichen planus following removal of amalgam restorations in patients with proven allergy to mercury salts: a pilot study Br Dent J 1995 178 108 12 7873305
  37. [41]McCullough MJ Tyas MJ Local adverse effects of amalgam restorations Int Dent J 2008 58 3 9 18350847
  38. [42]Forte G Petrucci F Bocca B Metal allergens of growing significance: epidemiology, immunotoxicology, strategies for testing and prevention Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets 2008 7 145 62 Review 18782021
  39. [43]Bains VK Loomba K Loomba A Bains R Mercury sensitisation: review, relevance and a clinical report Br Dent J 2008 205 373 8 18849934
  40. [44]Ritchie KA Burke FJ Gilmour WH Macdonald EB Dale IM Hamilton RM Mercury vapour levels in dental practices and body mercury levels of dentists and controls Br Dent J 2004 197 625 32 discussion 621 15611750
  41. [45]Jones L Bunnell J Stillman J A 30-year follow-up of residual effects on New Zealand School Dental Nurses, from occupational mercury exposure Hum Exp Toxicol 2007 26 367 74 17615119
  42. [46]Atesagaoglu A Omurlu H Ozcagli E Sardas S Ertas N Mercury exposure in dental practice Oper Dent 2006 31 666 9 17153974
  43. [48]Fuks AB The use of amalgam in pediatric dentistry Pediatr Dent 2002 24 448 55 12412959
  44. [49]Sasaki N Okuda K Kato T Kakishima H Okuma H Abe K Salivary bisphenol-A levels detected by ELISA after restoration with composite resin J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005 16 297 300 15803273
  45. [50]Christensen GJ Longevity of posterior tooth dental restorations J Am Dent Assoc 2005 136 201 3 15782524
  46. [51]Leinfelder KF Do restorations made of amalgam outlast those made of resin-based composites? J Am Dent Assoc 2000 131 1186 7 10953536
  47. [52]Soncini JA Maserejian NN Trachtenberg F Tavares M Hayes C The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial J Am Dent Assoc 2007 138 763 72 17545265
  48. [53]Bernardo M Luis H Martin MD Leroux BG Rue T Leitão J Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial J Am Dent Assoc 2007 138 775 783 17545266

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pant, V., Rathore, M., & Singh, A.
Corresponding author
Pant, VandanaA
ORCID
Venue
Toxicology International
Publisher
Informatics Publishing Limited
Published
2012
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
81
ISSN
0971-6580 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4103/0971-6580.97191
PMC
PMC3388771
OpenAlex
W2014729777
Cited by
119
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Toxicology International (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Heavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Keywords
dental amalgam, mercury toxicity, mercury exposure, amalgam restorations, mercury release, delayed-type hypersensitivity, environmental mercury exposure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review