Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T11:50:55.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Science and Politics of Dental Amalgam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Hellen Gelband
Affiliation:
Health Technology Consulting

Abstract

Dental amalgam—a mixture of elemental mercury and a silver-dominated metal alloy—has been the most widely used dental filling material for well over a century. Alternative materials exist but are not well suited for some important applications, and all are more expensive than amalgam. The toxic effects of occupational mercury exposure have long been known, but it was not until about 1980 that serious consideration was given to the possibility that mercury vapor escaping from amalgam fillings might be affecting health, specifically producing subtle effects on the central nervous system. Such effects have been reported among dentists and other dental personnel, whose exposures are well below industrial levels but above those from fillings alone. No large studies have been completed that examine the effects of mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings. In the face of inadequate evidence on the possible risks of dental amalgam, countries have reacted disparately. Sweden is phasing out amalgam entirely, possibly by the end of 1997. Germany has produced guidelines for limiting its use, other countries have signaled their intention to reduce it, and others—the United States and Canada—have studied the matter but taken no action. Policy differences within Europe have made dental amalgam a test case for the European Community's new medical device regulations. Relatively little epidemiologic research has been initiated to try to answer the question of dental amalgam's possible health effects. An international effort to define and carry out a research agenda to guide public policy is called for.

Type
General Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological profile for mercury (update) Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1994.Google Scholar
2. Austria to be amalgam free by year 2000. FDI Dental World, 1993, 03-04.Google Scholar
3.Berglund, A., & Molin, M.Mercury vapor release from dental amalgam in patients with symptoms allegedly caused by amalgam fillings. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 1996 104, 5663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Braveman, N. National Institute for Dental Research, personal communication, 11 1995.Google Scholar
5.Brodeur, J.-M., Payette, M., Benigeri, M., et al. Etude sur la santé bucco-dentaire des adultes de 18 arts et plus du Québec. Typescript, 06 1995.Google Scholar
6.Cooper, I., Senior Dental Officer, Department of Health, London, England, personal communication, 11 21, 1995 and 01 30, 1996.Google Scholar
7.Echeverria, D., Heyer, N. J., Martin, M. D., et al. Behavioral effects of low-level exposure to Hg° among dentists. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1995, 17, 161–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Freeman, M. European Commission, personal communication, 11 17, 1995.Google Scholar
9.Gay, D. D., Cox, R. D., & Reinhardt, J. W.Chewing releases mercury from fillings. Lancet, 1979, 8123, 985–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Gelband, H., & Stangel, I.Assessment of dental amalgam: Science and policy issues. Report to the Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec, 1996.Google Scholar
11. Government of Sweden. Summary of a Swedish government bill: Guidelines for actions for the reduction of risks in connection with the handling of chemicals, signed 02 17, 1994. Typescript, undated.Google Scholar
12.International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 58: Beryllium, cadmium, mercury, and exposures in the glass manufacturing industry. Lyon: IARC, 1993.Google Scholar
13.Kingman, A. National Institute on Dental Research, personal communication, 01 1996.Google Scholar
14.Mjor, I. A. Personal communication to Dr. Ivan Stangel, 1996.Google Scholar
15.Ngim, C. H., Foo, S. C., Boey, K. W. & Jeyaratnam, J.Chronic neurobehavioural effects of elemental mercury in dentists. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1992, 49, 782–90.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Olsson, S., & Bergman, M.Daily dose calculations from measurements of intra-oral mercury vapor. Journal of Dental Research, 1992, 7, 414–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Saxe, S. R., Snowdon, D. A., Wekstein, M. W., et al. Dental amalgam and cognitive function in older women: Findings from the Nun Study. Journal of the American Dental Association, 1995, 126, 1495–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Shapiro, I. M., Sumner, A. J., Spitz, L. K., et al. Neurophysiological and neuropsychological function in mercury-exposed dentists. Lancet, 1982, i, 1147–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Possible health effects and dental amalgam. English summary, typescript, 1994.Google Scholar
20.Taylor, D. W. Final Report of the Stakeholder Review Committee on the Safety of Dental Amalgam. Typescript, 03 1, 1996.Google Scholar
21.United States Public Health Service. Update statement by the U.S. Public Health Service on the safety of dental amalgam. Typescript, 09 1, 1995.Google Scholar
22.United States Public Health Service. Dental amalgam: a scientific review and recommended Public Health Service strategy for research, education and regulation. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1993.Google Scholar
23.Uzzell, B. P., & Oler, J.Chronic low-level mercury exposure and neuropsychological functioning. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1986, 8, 591–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.World Health Organization. Inorganic mercury: Environmental health criteria 118. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991.Google Scholar