Pathway to mercury-free dentistry: an insight into past, present, and future

Abstract

Purpose The popularity of dental amalgam arises from its excellent long-term performance, ease of use, and low cost. However, there is a concern about the potential adverse health effects arising from exposure to mercury in amalgam. This review article critically discusses the safety of dental amalgam as a restorative material and our preparedness for a mercury-free road ahead. Materials and Methods A database search was performed on PubMed and Google scholar using the keywords: “mercury-free dentistry”, “mercury toxicity”, “amalgam substitutes”, “amalgam mercury toxicity”. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were specified clearly. Relevant literature was also searched in the dental textbooks. Results Around 40 articles, highlighting mercury exposure among dental professionals and patients were included. Despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence demonstrating amalgam to be a safe restorative material, concerns about the toxic effects of mercury persist. Conclusion The real challenge is to find a suitable amalgam substitute and to follow the mercury hygiene measures closely.

Keywords

• Amalgam
• Mercury toxicity
• Minamata Convention
• Amalgam substitutes
• Amalgam alternatives

References

1. 1. Phillips RW, Skinner EW. Skinner’s science of dental materials. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1991, p. 496.
2. 2. Dental amalgam: update on safety concerns. ADA council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc.1998;129(4):494-503. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0252
3. 3. U.S. Public Health Service, Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Dental amalgam: A scientific review and recommended public health service strategy for research, education and regulation (Final report of the Subcommittee on Risk Management. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993; PHS publication no. 342-322/60025).
4. 4. Sturdevant. Biomaterials. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ, editors. Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5th ed., India: Mosby; Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd.; 2006, p. 135-242.
5. 5. Mahalaxmi S. Dental Amalgam. In: Mahalaxmi S, editor. Materials Used in Dentistry. 1st ed., India: Wolters Kluwer Health (India); 2013, p. 195-221. 6. Hyson JM Jr. Amalgam: Its history and perils. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2006 Mar;34(3):215-29. PMID: 16895078.
6. 7. Tuthill, JY. “Mercurial necrosis resulting from amalgam fillings.” The Brooklyn Medical Journal. 1898; XII:725-742.
7. 8. Talbot ES. The chemistry and physiological action of mercury as used in amalgam fillings. The Ohio State J. Dent. Sci. 1882;2(1):1-12.
8. 9. Dodes JE. The amalgam controversy. An evidence-based analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Mar;132(3):348-56.

9. 10. Soni R, Bhatnagar A, Vivek R, Singh R, Chaturvedi TP, Singh A. A systematic review on mercury toxicity from dental amalgam fillings and its management strategies. J. Sci Res 2012;56:81-92.
10. 11. Fawer RF, de Ribaupierre Y, Guillemin MP, Berode M, Lob M. Measurement of hand tremor induced by industrial exposure to metallic mercury. Br J Ind Med. 1983 May;40(2):204-8.
11. 12. Mackert JR Jr, Berglund A. Mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings: absorbed dose and the potential for adverse health effects. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1997;8(4):410-36.
12. 13. Bernhoft RA. Mercury toxicity and treatment: a review of the literature. J Environ Public Health. 2012;2012:460508. doi: 10.1155/2012/460508. Epub 2011 Dec 22.
13. 14. Decharat S, Phethuayluk P, Maneelok S, Thepaksorn P. Determination of Mercury Exposure among Dental Health Workers in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand. J Toxicol. 2014;2014:401012. doi:10.1155/2014/401012
14. 15. Langworth S, Sällsten G, Barregård L, Cynkier I, Lind ML, Söderman E. Exposure to mercury vapor and impact on health in the dental profession in Sweden. J Dent Res. 1997;76(7):1397-1404. doi:10.1177/00220345970760071001
15. 16. Nagpal N, Bettiol SS, Isham A, Hoang H, Crocombe LA. A Review of Mercury Exposure and Health of Dental Personnel. Saf Health Work. 2017;8(1):1-10. doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2016.05.007
16. 17. Mocevic E, Specht IO, Marott JL, et al. Environmental mercury exposure, semen quality and reproductive hormones in Greenlandic Inuit and European men: a cross-sectional study. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(1):97-104. doi:10.1038/aja.2012.121
17. 18. Sällsten G, Thorén J, Barregård L, Schütz A, Skarping G. Long-term use of nicotine chewing gum and mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings. J Dent Res. 1996;75(1):594-598. doi:10.1177/00220345960750011301
18. 19. Roberts HW, Charlton DG. The release of mercury from amalgam restorations and its health effects: a review. Oper Dent. 2009;34(5):605-614. doi:10.2341/08-072-LIT
19. 20. Halbach S. Combined estimation of mercury species released from amalgam. J Dent Res. 1995;74(4):1103-1109. doi:10.1177/00220345950740041101
20. 21. World Health Organization, Petersen, Poul Erik, Baez, Ramon, Kwan, Stella & Ogawa, Hiroshi. (‎2010)‎. Future use of materials for dental restoration: report of the meeting convened at WHO HQ, Geneva, Switzerland 16th to 17th November 2009. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/202500
21. 22. Wikipedia contributors. Minamata Convention on Mercury. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. December 29, 2020, 22:42 UTC. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minamata_Convention_on_Mercury&oldid=997082190. Accessed January 8, 2021.
22. 23. Yang L, Zhang Y, Wang F, Luo Z, Guo S, Strähle U. Toxicity of mercury: Molecular evidence. Chemosphere. 2020;245:125586. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125586
23. 24. Balaji SM. Mercury, dentistry, Minamata convention and research opportunities. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(6):819.
24. 25. Lutz F, Krejci I. Amalgam substitutes: a critical analysis. J Esthet Dent. 2000;12(3):146-159. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2000.tb00214.x
25. 26. "British Dental Health Foundation Policy Statement Dental Amalgam" (PDF). Dentalhealth.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-06-13.
26. 27. Wahl MJ. Amalgam--resurrection and redemption. Part 2: The medical mythology of anti-amalgam. Quintessence Int. 2001 Oct;32(9):696-710.
27. 28. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks), Scientific opinion on the Safety of Dental Amalgam and Alternative Dental Restoration Materials for Patients and Users (update), 29 April 2015.
28. 29. Yousefi H. Replacing dental amalgam by mercury-free restorative materials; it's time to take action. Daru. 2018;26(1):1-3. doi:10.1007/s40199-018-0212-6
29. 30. Fisher J, Varenne B, Narvaez D, Vickers C. The Minamata Convention and the phase down of dental amalgam. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96(6):436-438. doi:10.2471/BLT.17.203141