Mercury

“Measuring the amount of mercury present in the environment or food sources may provide an inadequate reflection of the potential for health risks if the protective effects of selenium are not also considered. Selenium’s involvement is apparent throughout the mercury cycle, influencing its transport, biogeochemical exposure, bioavailability, toxicological consequences, and remediation. Likewise, numerous studies indicate that selenium, present in many foods (including fish), protects against mercury exposure. Studies have also shown mercury exposure reduces the activity of selenium dependent enzymes. While seemingly distinct, these concepts may actually be complementary perspectives of the mercury-selenium binding interaction. Owing to the extremely high affinity between mercury and selenium, selenium sequesters mercury and reduces its biological availability. It is obvious that the converse is also true; as a result of the high affinity complexes formed, mercury sequesters selenium. This is important because selenium is required for normal activity of numerous selenium dependent enzymes. Through diversion of selenium into formation of insoluble mercury-selenides, mercury may inhibit the formation of selenium dependent enzymes while supplemental selenium supports their continued synthesis. Further research into mercury-selenium interactions will help us understand the consequences of mercury exposure and identify populations which may be protected or at greater risk to mercury’s toxic effects.”

Mercury in the form of amalgam is commonly introduced into dental wastewater as a result of amalgam placements and removals. Dental wastewater is primarily discharged to municipal sewers that convey industrial and residential wastewater to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) for treatment prior to discharge to surface waters. In some localities, the sewage sludge generated by POTWs from the treatment of wastewater is incinerated, resulting in the emission of mercury to the atmosphere. Some of the mercury emitted from the incinerators is deposited locally or regionally and will enter surface waters. An assessment was conducted of the use of mercury in amalgam in California and the discharge of that mercury from dental facilities to surface waters via the effluent from POTWs and air emissions from sewage sludge incinerators (SSIs). The annual use of mercury in amalgam placements conducted in California was estimated to be approximately 2.5 tons. The annual discharge of mercury in the form of amalgam from dental facilities to POTWs as a result of amalgam placements and removals was estimated as approximately one ton. The discharge of mercury to surface waters in California via POTW effluents and SSI emissions was estimated to total approximately 163 pounds. A cost-effectiveness analysis determined that the annual cost to the California dental industry to reduce mercury discharges to surface waters through the use of amalgam separators would range from 130,000 dollars to 280,000 dollars per pound.

Bartova Dental amalgam as one 2003“BACKGROUND:

Experimental and clinical data published recently show that dental amalgam can give rise to undesirable immunological responses in susceptible individuals. In genetically susceptible strains of experimental animals, mercury and silver can induce autoimmune responses. Sera of patients sensitive to mercury were found to have a higher incidence of autoantibodies relative to controls.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to determine possible presence of antinuclear SSB/La autoantibodies after the in vitro stimulation of peripheral blood lymphocytes with HgCl2.

METHODS:

Lymphocytes were obtained from patients with autoimmune thyroiditis and increased response to mercury in vitro. Mononuclear cells were cultivated for 6 days with 100 microl HgCl2 solution or with pure medium and the levels of antinuclear autoantibodies SSB/La were assayed by a commercial SSB/La ELISA kit.

RESULTS:

Increased production of SSB/La autoantibodies in the media following stimulation of peripheral blood lymphocytes with HgCl2 was found in all cases. Using the Student’s paired test, the results were significant on the p=0.05 significance level.

CONCLUSION:

Results imply that, in some patients with thyroiditis, mercury from dental amalgam can stimulate the production of antinuclear antibodies. Dental amalgam may be a risk factor in some patients with autoimmune disease.”

“OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate maternal and fetal hair mercury levels in relation to the placement of dental amalgam tooth restorations.

DESIGN:

Cross sectional study involving women who never had dental amalgam restorations placed, women who had amalgam restorations placed before pregnancy and women who had restorations placed during the index pregnancy.

SETTING:

North of England Maternity Hospital.

SAMPLE:

Fifty-three healthy women who delivered healthy babies at term.

METHODS:

Maternal and fetal hair was collected in a standardised manner in the first few days following delivery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Maternal and neonatal hair mercury concentrations.

RESULTS:

When compared with women without restorations, there was a significant increase in the maternal hair mercury concentration in women who had dental amalgam placed outside of the index pregnancy and also in women who had dental amalgam placed during the index pregnancy. The fetal hair mercury concentration was significantly higher in babies when mothers had been exposed to dental amalgam either before pregnancy or during pregnancy compared with unexposed babies. There was no difference in the maternal or fetal hair mercury levels in the groups of patients who had dental amalgam placed before or during pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS:

Maternal and fetal hair mercury levels were significantly higher in women who previously had dental amalgam restorations placed. There was no evidence that placement of dental amalgam restorations in pregnant women who had already similar restorations increased the maternal or fetal hair mercury level.”

“There is widespread concern regarding the safety of silver-mercury amalgam dental restorations, yet little evidence to support their harm or safety. We examined whether mercury dental amalgams are adversely associated with cognitive functioning in a cross-sectional sample of healthy working adults. We studied 550 adults, 30-49 years of age, who were not occupationally exposed to mercury. Participants were representative of employees at a major urban medical center. Each participant underwent a neuropsychologic test battery, a structured questionnaire, a modified dental examination, and collection of blood and urine samples. Mercury exposure was assessed using a) urinary mercury concentration (UHg); b) the total number of amalgam surfaces; and c) the number of occlusal amalgam surfaces. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate associations between each marker of mercury exposure and each neuropsychologic test, adjusting for potential confounding variables. Exposure levels were relatively low. The mean UHg was 1.7 micro g/g creatinine (range, 0.09-17.8); the mean total number of amalgam surfaces was 10.6 (range, 0-46) and the mean number of occlusal amalgam surfaces was 6.1 (range, 0-19). No measure of exposure was significantly associated with the scores on any neuropsychologic test in analyses that adjusted for the sampling design and other covariates. In a sample of healthy working adults, mercury exposure derived from dental amalgam restorations was not associated with any detectable deficits in cognitive or fine motor functioning.”

“The role of dental amalgam restorations in the aetiology of oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) remains controversial. Recent studies suggest that OLL occurring in the absence of cutaneous lesions of lichen planus may be due to cell-mediated (type IV) hypersensitivity to dental restorative metals, in particular, mercury in amalgam. Some authors report that 2/3 of subjects with OLL have contact sensitivity to mercury, although other studies show a much lower figure (1, 2). Martin et al (3) suggest that corrosion of amalgams and the presence of a galvanic effect from dissimilar dental metals in continuous contact (bimetallism) are associated with an increased risk of OLL. We share our experience of OLL and allergy to dental metals. Our aim was to assess the frequency of sensitization to dental mercury and to other metals used in dentistry, particularly gold, in patients with OLL referred to our unit.”

“OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this investigation was to establish whether monomethyl mercury (MMHg) is present in dental-unit wastewater and if present, to determine the concentration relative to total mercury.

METHODS:

Wastewater samples were collected over an 18-month period from three locations: at the dental chair; at a 30-chair clinic, and at a 107-chair clinic. Total mercury determinations were completed using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) method 1631. MMHg was measured utilizing modified USEPA method 1630.

RESULTS:

The total mercury levels were found to be: 45182.11 microg/l (n=13, SD=68562.42) for the chair-side samples, 5350.74 microg/l (n=12, SD=2672.94) for samples at the 30-chair clinic, and 13439.13 microg/l (n=13, SD=9898.91) for samples at the107-chair clinic. Monomethyl Hg levels averaged 0.90 microg/l (n=13, SD=0.87) for chair side samples, 8.26 (n=12, SD=7.74) for the 30-chair facility, and 26.77 microg/l (n=13, SD=34.50) for 107-chair facility. By way of comparison, the MMHg levels for the open ocean, lakes and rain are orders of magnitude lower than methyl mercury levels seen in dental wastewater (part per billion levels for dental wastewater samples compared to part per trillion levels for samples from the environment).

SIGNIFICANCE:

Environmentally important levels of MMHg were found to be present in dental-unit wastewater at concentrations orders of magnitude higher than seen in natural settings.”

“Today, however, exposure of the general population comes from three major sources: fish consumption, dental amalgams, and vaccines. Each has its own characteristic form of mercury and distinctive toxicologic profile and clinical symptoms. Dental amalgams emit mercury vapor that is inhaled and absorbed into the bloodstream. Dentists and anyone with an amalgam filling are exposed to this form of mercury.”

“Apolipoprotein-E (apo-E) genotyping has been investigated as an indicator of susceptibility to heavy metal (i.e., lead) neurotoxicity. Moreover, the apo-E epsilon (epsilon)4 allele is a major risk factor for neurodegenerative conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD). A theoretical biochemical basis for this risk factor is discussed herein, supported by data from 400 patients with presumptive mercury-related neuro-psychiatric symptoms and in whom apo-E determinations were made. A statistically relevant shift toward the at-risk apo-E epsilon4 groups was found in the patients p<0.001). The patients possessed a mean of 13.7 dental amalgam fillings and 31.5 amalgam surfaces. This far exceeds the number capable of producing the maximum identified tolerable daily intake of mercury from amalgam. The clinical diagnosis and proof of chronic low-level mercury toxicity has been difficult due to the non-specific nature of the symptoms and signs. Dental amalgam is the greatest source of mercury in the general population and brain, blood and urine mercury levels increase correspondingly with the number of amalgams and amalgam surfaces in the mouth. Confirmation of an elevated body burden of mercury can be made by measuring urinary mercury, after provocation with 2,3,-dimercapto-propane sulfonate (DMPS) and this was measured in 150 patients. Apo-E genotyping warrants investigation as a clinically useful biomarker for those at increased risk of neuropathology, including AD, when subjected to long-term mercury exposures. Additionally, when clinical findings suggest adverse effects of chronic mercury exposure, a DMPS urine mercury challenge appears to be a simple, inexpensive procedure that provides objective confirmatory evidence. An opportunity could now exist for primary health practitioners to help identify those at greater risk and possibly forestall subsequent neurological deterioration.”

“The venerable PFM crown or fixed prosthesis still dominates the tooth-colored restoration market. However, use of PFMs is declining slightly, as the many new all-ceramic and resin-based composite crowns and fixed-prosthesis products flood the market. Several situations may indicate the use of materials other than PFM. They include patients requiring a high level of esthetic acceptability, patients with proven or perceived allergies to the metals used in dentistry and bruxing or clenching patients with metal allergies or desire to eliminate metal from their mouths. PFM restorations have been proven during 40 years of successful use. They provide acceptable esthetics for most situations, minimal fracture during service, proven ability to serve in multiple-unit situations and excellent fit, and the profession has detailed knowledge of these restorations’ advantages, disadvantages and physical characteristics. PFM restorations have only a few well-known negative characteristics. Be cautious as you elect to move from the reliability and positive history of PFM to relatively unknown types of restorations.”