Author: Berdouses E, Vaidyanathan TK, Dastane A, Weisel C, Houpt M, Shey Z.

Source: J Dent Res.

Year: 1995

Comment:

While this study suggests that levels of mercury releases from amalgam fillings are safe, it also shows that age and amalgam type impact the amount of mercury released.

Abstract / Excerpt:

“The release of mercury vapor from class I amalgam restorations prepared in human molar teeth was studied during chewing simulations in an artificial mouth of a bi-axial servo-hydraulic mechanical test system. So that the total mercury released from the restoration over a fixed time could be determined, a closed chamber surrounded the envelope of chewing motion. In addition, the influence of sampling frequency on mercury release was corrected by the use of different sampling frequencies over a fixed time interval of mercury release measurement and extrapolation to zero sampling time. Thus, a combination of a closed environment and an extrapolation method to determine the mercury release under continuous sampling was used to determine the mercury released under normal breathing conditions. The measured mercury release rate data were used to calculate the potential daily mercury dose in a patient due to a single amalgam restoration, following the method previously outlined by Berglund. The mercury release from both a conventional and a high-copper amalgam was evaluated at different age intervals after the restoration was placed in the teeth. The results show that while the age of the amalgam and the amalgam type influence the extent of mercury release during the initial non-steady-state conditions, the steady-state value of mercury daily dose due to a single amalgam filling is 0.03 micrograms/day, which is well below the calculated threshold-limiting value (TLV) of 82.29 micrograms/day considered dangerous for occupational exposure in the United States.”

Citation:

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(5):1185–93.