Misinformation - the Propaganda Destroyed

Answering the statements made by various dental associations about mercury dental amalgam. These are set against statements by WHO and Swedish Govt. Reports and others

Dental associations around the world have consistently and actively promoted the notion that dental amalgam is a safe and effective filling material because it is cheap, strong and easy to use. For many years the dental associations have claimed that mercury is not released from the set filling material. They have now changed their position to acknowledge that ‘only a small amount is released’, with the inference that it is such a small amount that it will do no harm.

The Dental Associations refer to the position statements from various organisations, to support their claims of safety and effectiveness of amalgam. In particular they are fond of the so called “Consensus Statement’ of the WHO and the FDI. This is dealt with later.

The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia refers twice to the Australian Dental Association to reference its Position Statement. Interestingly the Australian Dental Association refers to the NHMRC to support its position on amalgam. At best, a curious merry-go-round.

Quotations are taken from the position statements from the following dental associatons;

Australian Dental Association website 7th Sept 2011 (page no longer available)
American Dental Association Wednesday, 7 September 2011 (page no longer available)
Canadian Dental Association amalgam 9 Sept 2011 http://www.cda-adc.ca/en/oral_health/procedures/fillings/metal.asp
British Dental Association Fact Sheet on Amalgam 12/9/11 PDF from the BDA website. (page no longer available)

World Health Organisation – Criteria 118

In 1991 the World Health Organization published “Inorganic Mercury. Environmental Health Criteria 1 18. International Program on Chemical Safety. (Geneva)”. This was the first time that WHO included mercury from amalgam, as a dietary source of mercury.

They state clearly that the No-Observable-Effect-Level for Mercury is ZERO. There is NO level of mercury which can be considered safe. There is NO level of mercury which does not show observable physiological changes.

WHO also state that 80% of inhaled mercury vapour is absorbed through the lungs and spreads throughout the body via the blood.

The daily contributions to the body burden of mercury from various sources are;

Air and water                 0 mcg/day
Foods generally             0.3 mcg/day
Seafood                         2.3 mcg/day
Dental Amalgam           1-17 mcg/day

The figure for amalgam was reviewed in 2003 and raised to 27 mcg/day.

The dental associations have chosen to ignore this for over 30 years!

Dental amalgam is the single greatest source of mercury to the general population

Ten times higher than all other sources combined, including seafood.

Proposition 65 California

In 2003 the Superior Court of California, passed legislation that all dental surgeries had to display the following warnings, according to their Proposition 65. (which basically says that anyone who is about to be poisoned with anything, must be warned.)

“Warning on dental amalgam, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.”

WHO & ATSDR Joint Statement 2003

This is the official position statement of the World Health Organization and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry from 2003. This is also THE OFFICIAL POSITION the dental associations never mention!

Dental amalgam constitutes a potentially significant source of exposure to elemental Mercury.
Estimates of daily intake range from 1 – 27 mcg/m³ .
80% of inhaled mercury vapour is retained.
Mercury may be absorbed through the skin in toxicologically relevant quantities.
Mercury is soluble in human fat and easily penetrates biological membranes – including the blood-brain barrier.
Metabolism of mercury compounds to other forms of mercury can occur within tissues of the body.
A broad range of symptoms have been reported and these symptoms are qualitatively similar irrespective of the mercury compound to which one is exposed.
Neurotoxic symptoms include tremors, emotional lability, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular changes, headaches, polyneuropathy, and performance deficits in tests of cognitive and motor functions. Some of these changes may be permanent.
Mild clinical signs of central nervous system toxicity can be observed among people who have been exposed occupationally to elemental mercury vapour concentrations of 20 mcg/m3.

Dr Anne Stewart, immediate past president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Dental Association, made the following statements which were published in Bite Magazine in 2011;

“Dental amalgam has an indisputable safety record and has been extensively reviewed,”
…”People are exposed to more total mercury from food, water and air than from the minuscule amounts of mercury vapour generated from amalgam fillings. Some 6000 tons of mercury enters the environment each year—about a third generated by power stations and coal fires. Much settles in the oceans where it enters the food chain and is concentrated in predatory fish like tuna. About 60 grams of tuna may provide as much mercury as having 10 amalgam fillings over a lifetime.” ^{Bite Magazine Your business – Mercury Article Louis White Heavy metal August 2011.}

These sorts of statements by the dental associations are common. The statement is not only inaccurate, it is a complete misrepresentation of the positions of the World Health Organisation and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The fact is that dental amalgam is the single greatest source of mercury to the general population and this is in the order of ten times more than all other sources combined including seafood.

The dental associations rarely, if ever, refer to the official position of the WHO, ATSDR, Swedish Government Report or the German Government report, all of whom condemn amalgam as a dangerous source of mercury. They deny the fact that amalgam is the single greatest dietary source of mercury to the non-occupationally exposed population.

The Australian Dental Association have published an article entitled;

“Dental Amalgam – A necessary and ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE OPTION”. (News Bulletin October 2011 Page 30) This article is addressed to the dentists who are members of the ADA.

They call it irresponsible for “minor lobby groups to call for the banning of dental amalgam”. The voices worldwide who have been calling for this ban are far from a minor lobby group. These lobby groups consist of dentists, doctors, scientist, researchers, professors and such international organizations as the IAOMT.

The ADA reference this article from their own literature, which is of course supposed to sound like a valid reference.

To suggest that dumping mercury into the environment is a responsible thing to do is nothing short of criminal. There is not one government in the world which would endorse such a situation.

It seems that the ADA are also happy to poison the most vulnerable section of our communities; ‘Without the availability of amalgam in situations where it would be the restorative material of choice, the ability of Australia’s most needy to receive adequate and safe dental treatment would be put at risk.’

i.e. if they cannot afford the best treatment they should only get the most toxic, tooth destructive material dentistry has to offer! Dental amalgam is NEVER a material of choice as better alternatives have been available for years, and as it is the most tooth-destructive material, it is a nonsense to even call it a cost effective ‘restorative’ material.

They also state; ‘… that amalgam waste can be and is being predictably and easily collected and recycled.’

This is blatantly untrue as most dentists who are still using amalgam are dumping their waste into the sewerage. In fact, the last time I called the ADA and the NSW Dental Board, I was unable to get the name of any reliable recycler – the very organization that makes these statements was unable to assist in the disposal of the waste amalgam. They also suggested that dental surgeries have regular mercury vapour levels checked. They were however unable to furnish a vapour meter nor were they able to supply the names of reputable organisations that could do this checking.

Their position also does not account for the spread of mercury to the environment via cremation, burial, urinating and defecating.

In an interview with ASSOC. PROF. LARS HYLANDER (Uppsala University, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Air and Water Sciencem, Villavägen 16, Uppsala, Sweden) reported in the International Dental Tribune 29 sept 2008

“One of the things that could be done by practically all countries is simply to remove amalgam fillings before bodies are burned in crematoria. But there are also alternatives, such as to freeze-dry bodies and then collect the fillings. The mercury-containing remains should be put in containers and securely stored, preferably in deep bedrock repositories, such as abandoned mines. Salt mines have been suggested because these mines typically have no humidity, an environment that excludes corrosion. However, their geologic characteristic does not guarantee their long-term stability. The abandoned mercury mine in Spain is a safer option for a sound, final disposal.”

The above recommendation is not a joke. Mercury is a disaster that the dental associations belittle and ignore.

Is Amalgam Safe?

Australian Dental Association: “dental amalgam produces no harmful effects”

The American Dental Association states; “Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.

“The Canadian Dental Association states; “Scientific observation of patients over the course of 150 years of using ever-improving formulations of dental amalgam is the foundation of CDA’s confidence in this material for general use.” “… In the case of dental amalgam, the scientific evidence indicates that no significant risks are involved. If there were risks, they would have been clearly observed during the 150 years that this material has been in use.”

The British Dental Association states: “Dental amalgam has been used as a safe, durable, stable and cost effective restorative material for more than 150 years.” ” dental amalgam is a safe material to use in restorative dentistry with respect to patients.”

These statements are false and misleading to both the general population and to the dental profession. Volumes of research which demonstrate the vast array of disease states associated with exposure to mercury from amalgam, are simply disqualified.

The dental association’s suggestion that this material has been tried and tested for 150 years, and thus shown to be safe, is an anecdotal smokescreen. In fact it is only the dental associations who have always claimed its safety. Yes, amalgam has been in use for 150 years (since 1812) and throughout that time there has been loud and widespread opposition to the position taken by the dental associations.

The use of any material for any length of time does not make it safe. Anecdotal evidence is NOT scientific evidence. Asbestos has also been used for decades before the dangers were brought to public awareness. In fact the use of asbestos as a liner in casting procedures in dentistry has only recently been suspended.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the USA, stated in 1990:

“Long-term exposure to either organic or inorganic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetuses….
“Short-term exposure to high levels of inorganic and organic mercury will have similar health effects; but full recovery is more likely after short-term exposures, once the body clears itself of the contamination.”

Material Data Safety Sheets

What the manufacturers say;

The dental associations have also chosen to ignore the advice from the amalgam manufacturers. The Material Safety Data Sheets from the amalgam manufacturers clearly demonstrate the dangers which the dental associations prefer to hide, to the detriment of the patient and all dental personnel.

Caulk Co (manufacturers of “Dispersalloy”), 1997, state in their MSDS that chronic inhalation of mercury vapour will cause:

“mercurialism, which is characterized by fine tremors and erethism. Tremors may affect the hands first, but may also become evident in the face, arms, and legs. Erethism may be manifested by abnormal shyness, blushing, self consciousness, depression or despondency, resentment of criticism, irritability or excitability, headache, fatigue, and insomnia. In severe cases, hallucinations, loss of memory and mental deterioration may occur. Concentrations as low as 0.03mcg/m3 have induced psychiatric symptoms in humans. Renal involvement may be indicated by proteinuria, albuminuria, enzymuria, and anuria. Other effects may include salivation, gingivitis, stomatitis, loosening of the teeth, blue lines on the gums, diarrhea, chronic pneumonitis and mild anemia. Repeated exposure to mercury and its compounds may result in sensitisation. Intrauterine exposure may result in tremors and involuntary movements in the infants. Mercury is excreted in breast milk. Paternal reproductive effects and effects on fertility have been reported in male rats following repeated inhalation exposures.”

The MSDS for Dispersalloy states that amalgam should not be used in the following circumstances:

In proximal or occlusal contact to dissimilar metal restorations.
In patients with severe renal deficiency.
In patients with known allergies to amalgam.
For retrograde or endodontic filling.
As a filling material for cast crown.
In children 6 yrs and under.
In expectant mothers.

Southern Dental Industries (SDI), the only Australian manufacturer of amalgam state in their MSDS:

“Inhalation of mercury vapours, dusts or organic vapours, or skin absorption or mercury over long periods can cause mercurialism. Symptoms include tremors, inflammation of mouth and gums, excessive salivation, stomatitis, blue lines on gums, pain and numbness in extremities, weight loss, mental depression, and nervousness. Exposure may aggravate kidney disorders, chronic respiratory disease and nervous system disorders.”

Kerr Corporation manufacturers of Tytin amalgam state on their MSDS:

“The placement of a dental amalgam in a patient will increase the levels of mercury in the body of the patient.”

Patients who claim to be poisoned are CRAZY

The British Dental Association state:

“It is perhaps worth noting that many studies of patients with alleged “amalgam illness” have shown that these patients often have a tendency towards psychosomatic disorders, anxiety and depression, panic disorder and the inability to perceive and understand threatening situations”

The British Dental Association’s malevolent disdain toward the well being of the patients, is clearly demonstrated. Calling these conditions ‘alleged “amalgam Illness’ is beyond derogatory. There is NO such thing as amalgam illness. There is however a condition known as micro-mercurialism which is characterized by a range of physical and psychological conditions, and caused by long term, low level exposure to mercury vapour.

They denounce the research and the word of the manufacturers and claim that all disease related to mercury from amalgam is in the head of the patient, implying that they are crazy. Has the British Dental Association never heard of the mad hatters?

Mercury is a neurotoxin. In simple basic language, it stuffs up the brain. The mercury from the amalgam fillings will in fact cause these and many other profound psychological disturbances. Dentists are the cause of much mental illness. Is it a wonder that patients get better when removed from the single greatest source of dietary mercury.

These associations, which lie about the dangers, are the same organizations who offer legal advice and indemnity insurance to dentists. They are trade organizations with their own vested interests which do not address the wellbeing of the patient or even their own membership.

One of the questions in my medical history questionnaire, was ‘do you have any psychological or nervous conditions?’ over 90% of patients with amalgam fillings ticked this question as a ‘Yes’ .

Many studies have demonstrated that removing amalgam will reduce the body burden of mercury and at the same time reduce the severity and incidence of diseases caused by the mercury. Amalgam Removal Lowers Body Burden of Mercury. This is acknowledged by the Australian, Swedish, Canadian and German Governments.

Blood and Urine Analysis

It is convenient for the dental associations to claim that urine and blood analysis are the only methods to determine body burdens of mercury. Urine analysis is the most common assessment of mercury levels. Unfortunately all that urine levels can look at are the excreted levels of mercury.

Mercury is a cumulative toxin. Much more is retained than is excreted. Urine levels are NOT a good predictor of body burdens of mercury. (Swedish Govt Report 2003) Blood is also of limited value as mercury only stays in the blood for about 12 hours before binding to cells. The main route of excretion is faecal. Much less is excreted in urine.

If you do not want to see mercury, the best place to look is in the urine or blood. Thus, amalgam is supposedly safe.

The Mechanics Myth

Amalgam has been raised to the status of an indispensable filling material by organizations that were built on its use – the dental associations. They have even declared that it is unethical to remove amalgam, to affect an improvement in health. ,

The dental associations claim that the alternatives to amalgam are mechanically inferior as a restorative material. This view is NOT supported by the consensus of scientific research. This view is not supported by an increasing number of dentists. Governments around the world acknowledge that better alternatives are available. They have been for years. This is perhaps why so many dentists around the world have turned their backs on this antiquated filling material.

Even if amalgam were the great filling material that the dental associations like to claim, it would still not be a good enough argument to place mechanics above health effects. Perhaps thalidomide should be reinstated to stop ‘morning sickness’ for pregnant women. An equally ridiculous notion.

Dental amalgam is not just a bad restorative material – it is in fact the most tooth-destructive material we have. It should NOT be described as “restorative”. It is more accurately described as an implant of mercury into living tissue which corrodes, expands and cracks teeth.

Mercury amalgam a mechanical disaster Copyright Robert Gammal 20201

In 1993 Dr Harold Loe, then the director of the National Institute of Dental Research in the USA stated:

“That first filling is a critical step in the life of a tooth. Using amalgam for the first filling requires removing a lot of the tooth substance, not only diseased tooth substance but healthy tooth substance as well. So, in making the undercut you sacrifice a lot, and this results in a weakened tooth. The next thing you know the tooth breaks off and you need a crown. Then you need to repair the crown…and so it continues to the stage where there is no more to repair, and you pull the tooth. With the first filling you should do something that can either restore the tooth or retain more healthy tooth substance. Use new materials – composites or materials you can bond to the surface without undercuts. You can do this with little removal of the tooth substance so that the core of the tooth is still there.”

Amalgam weakens the tooth. Bonded restorations strengthen the tooth. It is easier to replace a worn filling than to replace missing bits of teeth. I am sure that most people would prefer to change a filling rather than loose a tooth.

In 1995 Dr Richard Simonsen the editor-in-chief of Quintessence, wrote:

“Amalgam should never be used as a restorative material in paediatric dentistry. Why? Because better alternatives are available.”
“Amalgam should never be used as a first time restorative material. Why? Because better alternatives are available.”
“Move Over Amalgam – At Last.”

Why do the dental associations support the use of mechanically destructive, antiquated, second rate fillings? Why do the deans of dentistry insisit on teaching such a mechanically poor technique to dental students? Better alternatives have been available for decades.

The dental associations assert that amalgam is the best tooth filling material, yet readily admit that the use of amalgam is declining. Does this mean that all dentists who have turned their backs on amalgam, are performing inferior quality restorations. I doubt that the membership of these associations would support such a notion.

Amalgam is cheap

The British Dental Association state: “Amalgam remains a valuable tooth restorative material in dentistry for practical and realistic reasons. Other filling materials are available, but amalgam is cost effective and durable material.”

The proponents of amalgam claim that due to its cheap price it is an important filling material, as it can be afforded by the poorer people in the community. This may have been true at the time of its introduction in the early 1800s. At that stage the main alternatives to amalgam were gold (far out of the reach of the average person) and molten lead (the second most toxic substance known). I can understand that dentists would have been delighted to have this as an alternative, even though it was well known at the time of its introduction, to crack teeth and cause mercury poisoning. The times have changed and we do have cheap, effective and safer alternatives which do not destroy teeth, or poison their owners. Better alternatives have been available for years.

With respect to the actual dollar cost of a composite or amalgam filling there is not much difference in the patient’s bill nor in the time it takes a dentist to perform either task.

With respect to the fact that it cracks and destroys teeth, dental amalgam suddenly becomes a rather expensive ‘restoration’ as it will most likely need to be replaced by a crown, or an extraction and something to fill the gap. This compares unfavourably with the use of bonded composites which assist the integrity and strength of the tooth.

Amalgam is the single greatest source of mercury to the general population. Since when should the cost of a dental treatment outweigh its potential to cause disease. This argument is an insult to our intelligence. The cost of disease caused by mercury from amalgam is not included in the argument of its cheapness. This cost is not only carried by the patient, but is in fact carried by the whole of the community. Banning the use of amalgam would immediately add many dollars/pounds/etc to the wealth of all communities. I would propose that medical research funding could be far better spent after we stop poisoning the people who have the diseases. Health is much cheaper than disease, and sadly less profitable.

WHO FDI Consensus statement

Dental associations continually refer to the supposed World Health Organization and Federation Dentaries International (FDI) joint consensus statement on the safety of dental amalgam published 1997. NOTE; The FDI like all other dental associations is a private trade organization with a big name. They are the convenient big brother that all the other little PTOs can hang their hats on.

This consensus statement is NOT an official document from the WHO, but it is used consistently to mislead the public and the profession.

Australian Dental Association states:

“The World Health Organisation and the International Dental Federation have released a joint statement confirming the safety of dental amalgam as a filling material.”

The British Dental Association also quote this consensus statement:

“The World Dental Federation (FDI) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) consensus statement on dental amalgam13 was issued in 1997.”

Australian Dental Association states:

“ADA Council on Scientific Affairs Revised: August 2009 …. The FDI World Dental Federation and the World Health Organization concluded in a 1997 consensus statement: “No controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse effects from amalgam restorations .” Another conclusion of the report stated that, aside from rare instances of local side effects of allergic reactions, “the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any … adverse health effects.”

At the time this fraudulent WHO/FDI statement was published, there were many requests to the World Health Organization regarding the validity of the statement. WHO distanced themselves completely from this supposed consensus statement in the following response:

“28 October 1997
Ewa Carlsson Hopperger
Legal Officer
WHO Geneva
Expert Groups, whatever the form, are usually set up as ad hoc groups, and what they have in common is that they are only set up in order to provide advice to WHO.

This means that any statements or recommendations made by the group or the individual experts are not in any way binding for WHO, or any other body for that matter, they are only made as advice to WHO. Also, WHO is in no way responsible for the advice provided to it by the experts.”

Australia’s official government health organisation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, reference their position statement on an unofficial document which has nothing to do with the World Health Organisation and is little more than the opinion of an advisory body. The Australian, Canadian, British and American dental associations also rely heavily on this illusory consensus to support and justify their positions. It is NOT official WHO policy.

None of the dental associations ever quote the official position of WHO or ATSDR (at the top of this section) They do not quote the official government positions such as that of Sweden or Germany. They do not quote the position of the EU which wants a complete ban on the use of mercury.

Amalgam Removal is Unethical

Fear Mongering is a slippery slope!

Australian Dental Association write (1999):

“Should I have my dental amalgam fillings removed?” “Unless you are one of those rare individuals who is particularly sensitive to dental amalgam, you will not improve your dental health by having these fillings replaced. Australia’s specialist doctors and Health authorities have warned the public that there is no justification for believing that this will cure a range of serious illnesses.”

The Canadian Dental Association write;

“It does not make sense from either a general health point of view or a cost point of view to replace amalgam fillings simply on the basis of the current questions being asked about possible amalgam toxicity. Replacement may be considered for individuals sensitive to dental amalgam.”

In 2011 the Australian Dental Association write:

“The Association believes there is no positive gain in having dental amalgam fillings replaced with other materials, other than for aesthetic reasons.”

This position is NOT supported by the NHMRC working party in their 1999 report on amalgam, which lists a long table of symptoms reported to have improved after removal of amalgam. (page 33 table 5). Clearly the Australian Dental Association considers aesthetics more important than health.

The Australian Dental Association state:

“Should I have my amalgam fillings replaced?
Answer
…. If you seek replacement of quite satisfactory amalgam fillings for other reasons, such as a concern about the effects of mercury, you may create problems that otherwise would not have occurred, such as: Possible damage to or weakening of teeth. Sensitivity or pain after the filling, Financial problems.”

The British Dental Association state:

“No evidence supporting amalgam removal for supposed health benefits has been found. There is no clinical justification for removing clinically satisfactory amalgam restorations, except in those patients suspected of having allergic reactions to one of the amalgam constituents.”

This fear mongering side-steps the real issue. Amalgam in the mouth is mercury in the body. Amalgam in a tooth weakens the tooth. Amalgam fillings transmit temperature changes and electrical stimulation directly to the nerve of the tooth. In most people’s language this is called ‘PAIN’.

What is the financial burden of having to continually repair the tooth, which is fractured by the amalgam and potentially the financial cost of diseases caused by the mercury exposure, compared to the difference in cost between placing an amalgam or composite filling?

In 1999 the Working Party on Mercury and Amalgam, for the NHMRC (Australia) stated

“the likely daily intake of mercury from dental amalgam fillings encroached substantially on a prudent safety margin between exposure and identified adverse health effects.” They also state that “Mercury can cross the placental barrier and can impair kidney function at sub-clinical levels of exposure.”

This Working Party also recommended that Australia carry out its own risk assessment. Point 8 of the executive summary of that Risk Assessment states:

“Amalgam removal has been shown to be effective in reducing mercury levels to the levels of those in people without amalgam fillings. …. This change was accompanied by a decline in symptoms….”

It is well accepted, even by the manufacturers of amalgam, that placing amalgam fillings will cause an increase in the body burden of mercury. It is also well established that removal of amalgam fillings will lower the body burden of mercury. Many symptoms and diseases will also resolve.

This is acknowledged by the Australian, Swedish, Canadian and German Governments. There is NO safe level of mercury. Any level of mercury is detrimental to health. There is NO justification for its continued use and nor is there justification for pretending that it is safe to leave in the mouth.

Alternatives not tested

The Australian Dental Association state, with regard to the fact that amalgam usage is reducing:

“The reason for this is the public demand for tooth-coloured fillings in visible areas of the mouth. These materials have not been in use for enough time to test their long-term comparison with amalgam but results are encouraging.”

Composites have been in use for decades. Their effectiveness has been well tested and well researched. They do in fact make a tooth stronger and support undermined tooth structure. Amalgam causes fractures in the cusps of teeth. The suggestion that “These materials have not been in use for enough time to test their long-term comparison with amalgam” is a blatant lie. I personally have used composites since before 1987 and have not placed an amalgam since 1987!

Reduction in Use of Amalgam

The Australian Dental Association state:

“In 1983-4, amalgam was used in 68% of all fillings in Australia. By the late 1990’s this had reduced to less than 30% (NHMRC 1999)”

The Australian Dental Association are only quoting the recommendations of the NHMRC working party and NOT the official position of the NHMRC. The reduction in the use of amalgam is NOT in any way an indication of its safety. Their figures are also seriously skewed. The 30% claim only refers to use of amalgam in private practice. One may assume that amalgam is far more widely used in the public health sector.

The references for this claim of 30% reduction of use of amalgam are; “Data for 1983–84, 1988–89 from Spencer et al, 1994; data for 1993–94 and 1997–98 from D. Brennan (personal communication, May 1998).”

As you can see the latest figures merely come from a ‘personal communication’ as long ago as 1988. The individuals who communicated with each other are not mentioned in the working party report. This is an unreliable assertion which must surely condemn the conclusions of this supposedly official working party statement and again shows the flimsy evidence base of the Australian Dental Association’s statements.

It is worth noting that although the ADA and the NHMRC are willing to use references from over twenty years ago, the dental students are only allowed to reference their essays with publications which are no older than ten years. I doubt that a ‘personal communication’ would win any student points in an exam.

Alloy Vs Mixture – a semantic issue?

The Australian Dental Association state:

“Dental amalgam is an alloy of silver, tin, copper and mercury.”

American Dental Association states:

“It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance.”

The word ‘amalgam’ means a mixture of one or more metals with mercury. Dental amalgam is NOT an alloy. It is a MIXTURE of an alloy with mercury. The alloy is usually composed of silver, tin, zinc and copper. The alloy is powdered and then mixed in the dental surgery with an equal amount of mercury. Mercury constitutes about 50% of set amalgam. As such the elemental mercury can and does escape from the set amalgam filling all of the time.

The British Dental Association go so far as to lie about the release of mercury from amalgam:

“What are the health effects of dental amalgam?” “In the mouth, mercury is amalgamated with other metals and is therefore rendered inert. Chewing can release some mercury vapour but this is very minimal.”

Why is the BDA not being taken to task for this lie?

‘Minimal’ has no meaning. Quantify this amount as the WHO did in 1991.
Mercury from amalgam is anything but inert.
Mercury in all forms is Bio-available.
It is estimated that 80% of inhaled mercury vapour from amalgam fillings is absorbed across the lungs.
Elemental mercury which is derived from amalgam is totally bio-available.

Safe in Pregnancy – It must be good for your baby!

The Australian Dental Association sate:

“If you already have amalgam fillings, there is no evidence to suggest you or your baby will be harmed because of them.”

Corroded Amalgam copyright Robert Gammal — The Smooth Taste of Mercury

The British Dental Association state:

“Is amalgam safe for use in pregnant women?
It is known that mercury can cross the placenta from mother to foetus – but there is no evidence of any link between amalgam use and birth defects or stillbirths.” … “It remains the Department’s advice that dentists should continue to avoid or delay any dental intervention or medication during pregnancy; however a dental emergency where treatment with dental amalgam is required can outweigh any, as yet, theoretical risk of systemic toxicity” … “There is no evidence to suggest that pre-existing amalgam restorations pose any risk as far as the health of such women and the developing foetus is concerned, and any removal of restorations during this time would present a greater exposure to mercury.”

Volumes have been written about the dangers of mercury exposure to the foetus and newborn infant. Mercury from amalgam crosses the placenta and breast milk. Mercury accumulates in all tissues of the foetus. In fact when the research was published in 1994, which demonstrated a direct linear relationship between the number of amalgams in the mother’s mouth to the amount of mercury in the tissues of deceased infants and foetuses, the German government responded by issuing immediate warnings against the use of mercury amalgam for pregnant women, children and women of child bearing age. The Australian Dental Association’s response at the time was merely that the research was seriously flawed. They have never pointed out what they consider the flaws to be.

To suggest that mercury from dental amalgam is safe for pregnant women and foetuses not only flies in the face of the published research, official government and WHO positions but also the official position of the NHMRC 2002 which states;

“During pregnancy, placement of new amalgam fillings or removal of old ones is not recommended, because the level of mercury in the blood tends to rise briefly in these situations. The mercury can cross the placenta and enter the bloodstream of the foetus”

The NHMRC also state that;

“Women who are breastfeeding should also avoid having amalgam fillings inserted or removed, because mercury can be passed to the baby through breast milk.”

Mercury is mutagenic, embryotoxic and teratogenic. The position of these dental associations will condemn thousands of unborn children to mercury poisoning from the amalgam in their mother’s mouths. This is not acceptable.

The Canadian Dental Association state;

“There is no scientific evidence of ill effects, although mercury is known to cross the placenta. A stakeholder committee convened by Health Canada concluded that while “the research evidence did not support excluding children, pregnant or lactating women…from receiving amalgam fillings…common sense dictated that pregnant women should avoid any elective medical or dental intervention until after delivery.”

A ” stakeholder committee convened by Health Canada ” is not a scientific body – they are advisory only and as stakeholders would have a financial interest. I would suggest that there is very little in the way of common sense coming from the dental associations.

Common sense would dictate that mercury should NEVER be implanted into living humans.
Common sense would also dictate that the mouth of a living human being is the only place on the whole planet where dental amalgam is NOT considered to be Toxic Hazardous Waste.
Common sense would guide any intelligent person to the research which indicates that the level of mercury in the foetus is in direct linear relationship to the number of amalgam fillings in the mother’s mouth.

The position of the Canadian Dental Association is at odds with the official position of Canada Health.
Canada Health in fact stated in 1996 that:

Non-mercury filling materials should be considered for restoring the primary teeth of children where the mechanical properties of the material are suitable.
Whenever possible, amalgam fillings should not be placed in or removed from the teeth of pregnant women.
Amalgam should not be placed in patients with impaired kidney function.
In placing and removing amalgam fillings, dentists should use techniques and equipment to minimize the exposure of the patient and the dentist to mercury vapour, and to prevent amalgam waste from being flushed into municipal sewage systems.
Dentists should advise individuals who may have allergic hypersensitivity to mercury to avoid the use of amalgam. In patients who have developed hypersensitivity to amalgam, existing amalgam restorations should be replaced with another material where this is recommended by a physician.
New amalgam fillings should not be placed in contact with existing metal devices in the mouth such as braces.
Dentists should provide their patients with sufficient information to make an informed choice regarding the material used to fill their teeth, including information on the risks and benefits of the material and suitable alternatives.
Dentists should acknowledge the patient’s right to decline treatment with any dental material.

NHMRC Working Party Reference

The NHMRC Working Party report states:

“… general public and environmental health principles dictate that where possible exposure to mercury from dental amalgams be reduced where a safe and practical alternative exists. This becomes more prudent in special populations, including children, women in pregnancy and persons with existing kidney disease.”

I would point out that practical alternatives to mercury amalgam have existed for decades. Why else would there be a swing toward the use of these alternative materials. Patients would never accept them if they looked good but did not do the job for which they were intended. I would suggest that another possible reason for the swing away from amalgam is that there is a growing awareness amongst the public and the dentists, of the danger of mercury released from amalgam.

Health Effects On Dental Personnel

The Canadian Dental Association write:

“Dental team members, in particular, would have shown clinically demonstrable effects due to their considerable exposure to the substance.”

The British Dental Association state:

“Dentists have far more mercury exposure than the general populations. Health and morbidity studies, however, have indicated that dentists have no unusual diseases and live longer than physician colleagues who generally are not exposed to mercury in the workplace.”

All dental associations have claimed the wellbeing of their members to be a sign of confidence for the ‘safety’ of amalgam. Unfortunately, dental personnel are NOT healthy. They DO show clinically demonstrable effects caused by mercury far sooner than the rest of the population. Dentists have one of the highest suicide rates of all professionals. It is clear that the interests of the dental associations do not encompass the wellbeing of their members. The dental associations do not represent or look after the welfare of the dental nurses, receptionists, dental technicians, dental hygienists or any other member of the dental team. Their health is also condemned by these fabricated statements.

A short list of some of the published effects on dental personnel includes;

Contact dermatitis
Increased hypersensitivity due to mercury as an allergen
Increased rate of infertility, miscarriage and birth defects
Increased rates of menstrual problems
Mercury crosses the placenta and is found in breast milk
Increased rates of autism with increased levels of mercury
Male and female reproduction are affected
Genetic change

Irritability, cephalalgia, arthralgias
Damage to skeletal muscle
Mercury causes micro-angiopathies
Neuropsychological, muscular, respiratory, cardiovascular and dermal symptoms were more prevalent in dentists.
Kidney disease
Immune system disturbances dramatic effects on immune systems of dental students
Endocrine function is affected
Neurophysiological and neuropsychological effects
Increased number of polyneuropathies
Twice the rate of glioblastoma to the rest of the population (Study of 9241 people)
Neural degeneration
High suicide rate

The research associating mercury with major diseases is even more relevant for dental students and all dental personnel, whose exposure to mercury vapour far exceeds that of the general population.

There is an increasing association between mercury and Alzheimer’s disease
There is also an association with Parkinson’s disease
Mercury has been associated with Motor Neuron Disease,

Amalgam is cytotoxic. Dental amalgam itself has been found to be toxic to nerve cells
There is a significant increase in mercury and antibiotic resistance within two weeks of mercury filling placement
Lichen Planus is strongly associated with amalgam fillings. The majority of lesions resolve when amalgam is removed.
Mercury binds to selenium and blocks its use for a large variety of actions
Heart attack, stroke and liver damage are strongly associated with mercury,
Low concentrations are mutagenic
Hearing loss may be caused by mercury
Kawasaki’s disease may also be related to mercury
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis is associated with mercury
Sperm count and motility are affected by mercury
Colour vision and other visual disturbance caused by mercury. Colour vision may be permanently affected

Two studies from 1997 and 2002 demonstrate statistically significant correlations between mercury and the following symptoms:

“…bleeding gums, metallic taste, burning tongue, concentration problems, memory disturbances, sleep disturbances, lack of initiative, restlessness. Gastrointestinal: not specified.
A statistically significant relationship between saliva mercury and the number of amalgam fillings was also demonstrated.”

Only a SMALL Amount

The British Dental Association state:

“The small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any other adverse health effects.”

In 1999 the Australian Dental Association stated;

“Advances in testing equipment over the past few years have enabled us to detect very small amounts of mercury released from fillings, especially when fillings are polished or removed.”

This statement is similar to that of the Canadian Dental Association:

Q. Is the mercury which is released from fillings absorbed into the body?
A. Yes, but in extremely small amounts, i.e. in MILLIONTHS of a gram (this is very small amount, 0.000001 grams).

In 1996 Dr Richard Tobin, director of Health Canada’s Medical Devices Bureau, urged the dental association to correct wrong information about mercury from amalgam.

Dr Richard Tobin:

“This answer is rather condescending and insulting to the intelligence of readers. By emphasizing only how small a microgram is it implies that a microgram of toxic material could not be harmful. What is significant is not how many zeroes there are in a microgram, but how many micrograms of mercury are released by and compared to the number of micrograms required to cause illness. The fact is that a level of only one hundred millionths of a gram of mercury per gram of Creatinine in urine is considered to indicate clinical mercury poisoning.

As shown above in WHO Criteria 118 – dental amalgam is the single greatest source of mercury to the general population. Ten times more than all other sources combine.

Allergy

See Scientific Facts about Mercury form Amalgam Here

The dental associations always point to the low rate of allergy to mercury amalgam instead of dealing with the issue of mercury’s effects on the immune system or any other part of the body. It is well known and well published that mercury has a devastating effect on the immune system. Allergy is just one small part of this picture. To top it off though, the dental associations have never been able to reference where they get their low numbers from. 1% allergy rate is an illusion that has been created to make up for the lack of science.

The supposed low rates of allergy to mercury are only a distraction from the vast and devastating effects that mercury, from amalgam, has on the body. It’s a smokescreen that has been used for over 50 years.

The Australian Dental Association states:

“… there is no scientific evidence that these tiny amounts of mercury released from dental fillings are a danger to health, apart from those rare cases where some individuals are unusually sensitive to this material.” “Can you be allergic to the mercury in amalgam? ” “This is extremely rare. Only 46 cases have been reported throughout the world since 1905. If you are worried, ask your doctor to refer you to a specialist for tests to check if you are allergic. If so, your dentist can use another type of filling for you. Alternatives exist but some can be rather expensive. “

The British Dental Association state:

“Allergic reactions to mercury in dental amalgam have also been reported but these are very rare.”

The implication that only the rare allergic person will be affected, is false and misleading. Mercury is the third most toxic substance known. Mercury is cumulative. Mercury kills cells indiscriminately and also causes genetic mutations. Mercury is mutagenic, embryotoxic, teratogenic, neurotoxic and will affect every organ system in the body as well as reduce immune function, kidney filtration function, and gut function. Allergy is but one way that mercury will affect the body.

Sensitivity to mercury is never tested before amalgam is placed in the body. Consent is never obtained for doing this, as the dental associations consider attendance at the dentist, a form of consent for doing a ‘routine’ procedure, even though this procedure is known to poison the patient.

What about those who are allergic to mercury and are consistently misdiagnosed by the medical profession. Does the Australian Dental Association consider these people as collateral damage? In the past the Australian Dental Association have claimed that only about 1% of the population are allergic to mercury. Assuming that 70% of people have amalgam fillings in their bodies, that would mean that in Australia there would be 154,000 and in America there would be 1,750,000 people, whose health is directly affected by an allergy to the mercury from their amalgams. Their symptoms could be dramatically different.

The Canadian Dental Association is claiming that 3% of the population are allergic and quote the American Dental Association Journal; “It has been estimated that the prevalence of mercury sensitivity in the general population is approximately three per cent (JADA, Vol. 122, Aug. 1991, p. 54).”

So according to the CDA we have 462,000 people in Australia and 5,250,000 people in America whose health is directly affected by an “allergic reaction” to the mercury from their amalgams. Most of these people WILL be misdiagnosed by the medical profession.

The dental associations seem to have little regard for ‘collateral damage’.

Fish Vs Amalgam as Dietary Sources

Clearly the dental associations do not read the science nor the official statements from the World Health Organization. See Criteria 118 that follows.

Australian Dental Association write:

“A normal balanced diet contains amount of mercury and we also come into contact with it in our environment and in a number of other products. Sources of mercury in the environment include: industrial processes, batteries, deodorants, nasal sprays and even some vaccines such as flu vaccine”

The Canadian Dental Association write;

“Question; What amount of mercury does a person take into the body from natural sources and how much comes from amalgam fillings?
Answer;
The amount depends on a number of factors, such as the type of food you eat, your occupational exposure, environmental levels and the number of amalgam fillings you have. Health Canada estimates that for the average Canadian adult 20 to 59 years old the amount of mercury absorbed by the body from all sources is about nine millionths of a gram per day. Of this total dental amalgam is estimated to contribute about three millionths of a gram per day.”

Criteria 118

Criteria 118, published in 1991 by the World Health Organization, clearly shows that the amount of mercury ingested and inhaled from amalgam fillings is in the order of ten times more than all other sources combined, including seafood. Estimates of daily intake of mercury from amalgam range from 1 to 27 mcg/day. Fish and seafood contribute 2.3mcg/day. Other food sources only 0.3mcg/day and air and water are generally free of mercury. The dental associations continue to spread this misinformation today, yet no government intervention has ever been used to force them to publish the truth.

Dental amalgam is the single greatest dietary source of mercury –
it is ten times more than ALL other sources combined including seafood!

100 million Americans – It must be good!

American Dental Association Statement;

“Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans.”

As there are about 250 million people in America and the accepted figure for the number of people with amalgam is about 70% than their figures should read that 175 million people have mercury implants in their bodies. Rather than justifying its use, I see this as a dramatic admission of guilt for poisoning this many people.

It is also an admission of guilt for poisoning the environment. Assuming that each one of these people only has one filling which weighs about 2 grams that would make the American people the bearers of 175,000,000 grams of mercury or 175 tons. In reality the average number of fillings per person is closer to 6 times this figure or 1,050 tons.

The numbers game is always played, to demonstrate safety and efficacy. This is another fantasy. Just because millions are done does not mean that it is safe or effective. Just a side step away from the science.

No matter which way we turn it, all of this mercury is destined to end in the environment, via human excretion, cremation and burial.

Humans are NOT a Part of the Environment

The dental associations only discuss the environmental pollution caused by mercury from dental surgeries. They ignore the pollution caused by cremation, burial, and daily excretion in urine and faeces which comes from dental amalgam.

Australian Dental Association write: “Is it true that Sweden has banned amalgam?
The Swedish Medical Research Council has confirmed the safety of dental amalgam fillings. Sweden has not “banned” amalgam but, because of concerns about a number of chemicals, including mercury, in the environment from a number of sources – not just fillings, they have recommended the phasing out of amalgam over the next few years, provided suitable alternatives can be used.”

See the Swedish Government Report 2003

See Mercury In the Environment

The concern that the dental associations have for the environment is nothing more than ‘lip service’. The only way to eliminate this worldwide disaster is to place an immediate ban on the use of mercury releasing dental amalgam. The pollution caused from dental surgeries is only a part of the total mercury pollution problem, although it is significant.

That is why laws are in place and why the Australian Dental Association has the following recommendations in their waste management policy (Statement 6.11) (You may detect a note of hypocrisy)

“1.4   Amalgam waste is created in dental clinics during the placement and removal of amalgam restorations.
1.5     Dental amalgam waste may find its way into wastewater, sedimentation in sewage sludge, landfills and the atmosphere.
1.6     Chairside traps, suction filters and/or amalgam separators capture most of the amalgam waste.” “Although mercury in the form of dental amalgam is very stable, amalgam should not be disposed of in the general waste, infectious waste “yellow bag”, pharmaceutical waste or sharps container. Amalgam also should not be rinsed down the drain. These precautions are important because some communities incinerate municipal garbage, medical waste, and sludge from wastewater treatment plants. If amalgam waste ends up in one of these incinerated waste streams, the mercury can be released to the environment due to the extremely high temperatures used in the incineration process.”

“Store amalgam waste in a covered plastic container labelled “Amalgam for Recycling” or as directed by your recycler.”

The British Dental Association state:

“Article 4 of the Waste Directive (75/442/EEC) requires that waste must be disposed of without endangering human health or the environment. This includes amalgam waste from dental practices.”

If waste amalgam is so dangerous for the environment, would it not make sense that it may be dangerous in the oral environment also?

The only place that dental amalgam is considered ‘safe’

anywhere in the world,

is in the mouth of a living human being.

Mercury Release when filling and drilling

The dental associations like to claim that mercury is only released when placing or removing amalgam. This is simple untrue. Mercury is released from amalgam all of the time, which is why it is considered by the EPA to be a Toxic Waste Hazard. That is also why it contributes ten times more than all other dietary sources, to daily intake and retention, into the body.

See Maximum Mercury Vapour Levels

Dentists in California must warn their patients that they are about to poison them with mercury from the amalgam fillings they are about to place.
They must display a sign which states;

“Dental Amalgam, used in many dental fillings,
causes exposure to mercury,
a chemical known to the State of California
to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm.”

References

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au

ATSDR. 1990. Technical assistance to the Tennessee Department of Health and Environment: Mercury exposure study, Charleston, Tennessee, Final Report, December 1990. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. ATSDR/HS-91/11.

World Health Organization. 1991. Inorganic Mercury. Environmental Health Criteria 1 18. International Program on Chemical Safety. (Geneva).

WHO & ATSDR Joint Statement on Mercury 2003 Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Human Health Aspect No 50. Based on the toxicological profile for mercury 1999 (update) published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Pizzichini M Fonzi M Gasparoni A Fonzi L Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam fillings. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol (2000 May-Dec) 42(2-3):88-93

Ganss C Gottwald B Traenckner I Kupfer J Eis D Monch J Gieler U Klimek J Relation between mercury concentrations in saliva, blood, and urine in subjects with amalgam restorations. Clin Oral Investig (2000 Dec) 4(4):206-11

Ohmoto K Nakajima H Ferracane JL Shintani H Okabe T Mercury evaporation from amalgams with varied mercury contents. Dent Mater J (2000 Sep) 19(3):211-20

Pizzichini M Fonzi M Gasparoni A Mencarelli M Rocchi G Kaitsas V Fonzi L Influence of amalgam fillings on Hg levels and total antioxidant activity in plasma of healthy donors. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol (2001 May-Sep) 43(2):62-7

Leistevuo J Leistevuo T Helenius H Pyy L Osterblad M Huovinen P Tenovuo J Dental amalgam fillings and the amount of organic mercury in human saliva. Caries Res (2001 May-Jun) 35(3):163-6

Geijersstam E Sandborgh-Englund G Jonsson F Ekstrand J Mercury uptake and kinetics after ingestion of dental amalgam. J Dent Res (2001 Sep) 80(9):1793-6

Khordi-Mood M Sarraf-Shirazi AR Balali-Mood M Urinary mercury excretion following amalgam filling in children. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol (2001) 39(7):701-5

Galic N Prpic-Mehiic G Prester LJ Krnic Z Blanusa M Erceg D Elimination of mercury from amalgam in rats. J Trace Elem Med Biol (2001) 15(1):1-4

Montomoli L Sisinni AG Cioni F Barabesi L Gilberti ME Festa D Sartorelli P [Evaluation of sources of mercury absorption through studying urinary mercury levels in the general population] Med Lav (2002 May-Jun) 93(3):184-8

Apostoli P Colombi A Buratti M Elia G Flore C Carta P Ibba A Cortesi I Mangili A Alessio L [Evaluation of the dose of mercury in exposed and control subjects] Med Lav (2002 May-Jun) 93(3):159-75

Gabrio T Benedikt G Broser S Felder-Kennel A Fichtner G Horras-Hun G Jovanovic S Kirsch H Kouros B Link B Maisner V Piechotowski I Rzonca E Schick KH Schrimpf M Schroder S Schwenk M Spoker-Maas K Weidner U Wuthe J Zollner I [10 years of observation by public health offices in Baden- Wurttemberg–assessment of human biomonitoring for mercury due to dental amalgam fillings and other sources] Gesundheitswesen (2003 May) 65(5):327-35

Pizzichini M Fonzi M Giannerini F Mencarelli M Gasparoni A Rocchi G Kaitsas V Fonzi L Influence of amalgam fillings on Hg levels and total antioxidant activity in plasma of healthy donors. Sci Total Environ (2003 Jan 1) 301(1-3):43-50

Joska L Marek M Passivation of dental amalgams and mercury release. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) (2004) 47(4):243-8

Vamnes JS Lygre GB Gronningsaeter AG Gjerdet NR Four years of clinical experience with an adverse reaction unit for dental biomaterials. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol (2004 Apr) 32(2):150-7

Hansen G Victor R Engeldinger E Schweitzer C Evaluation of the mercury exposure of dental amalgam patients by the Mercury Triple Test. Occup Environ Med (2004 Jun) 61(6):535-40

Dye BA Schober SE Dillon CF Jones RL Fryar C McDowell M Sinks TH Urinary mercury concentrations associated with dental restorations in adult women aged 16-49 years: United States, 1999-2000. Occup Environ Med (2005 Jun) 62(6):368-75

Guzzi G Grandi M Cattaneo C Calza S Minoia C Ronchi A Gatti A Severi G Dental amalgam and mercury levels in autopsy tissues: food for thought. Am J Forensic Med Pathol (2006 Mar) 27(1):42-5

Clarkson TW Vyas JB Ballatori N Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body. Am J Ind Med (2007 Oct) 50(10):757-64

Bjorkman L Lundekvam BF Laegreid T Bertelsen BI Morild I Lilleng P Lind B Palm B Vahter M Mercury in human brain, blood, muscle and toenails in relation to exposure: an autopsy study. Environ Health (2007) 6:30

Woods JS Martin MD Leroux BG DeRouen TA LeitÃ£o JG Bernardo MF Luis HS Simmonds PL Kushleika JV Huang Y The contribution of dental amalgam to urinary mercury excretion in children. Environ Health Perspect (2007 Oct) 115(10):1527-31

Campus G Garcia-Godoy F Gaspa L Panzanelli A Piu PC Micera G Luglie P Sanna G Dependence of kinetic variables in the short-term release of Hg2+, Cu2+ and Zn2+ ions into synthetic saliva from an high-copper dental amalgam. J Mater Sci Mater Med (2007 Aug) 18(8):1521-7

Nur Ozdabak H Karaoglanoglu S Akgul N Polat F Seven N The effects of amalgam restorations on plasma mercury levels and total antioxidant activity. Arch Oral Biol (2008 Dec) 53(12):1101-6

Melchart D Kohler W Linde K Zilker T Kremers L Saller R Halbach S Biomonitoring of mercury in patients with complaints attributed to dental amalgam, healthy amalgam bearers, and amalgam-free subjects: a diagnostic study. Clin Toxicol (Phila) (2008 Feb) 46(2):133-40

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 May) 107(1):79-88

Harris HH Vogt S Eastgate H Legnini DG Hornberger B Cai Z Lai B Lay PA Migration of mercury from dental amalgam through human teeth. J Synchrotron Radiat (2008 Mar) 15(Pt 2):123-8

Brigato Rde C Costa LM da Costa MR Assis NM Kubo CH Mercury, copper, and zinc concentrations in extracted human teeth. Arch Environ Occup Health (2009 Winter) 64(4):266-9

Fakour H Esmaili-Sari A Zayeri F scalp hair and saliva as biomarkers in determination of mercury levels in Iranian women: amalgam as a determinant of exposure. J Hazard Mater (2010 May 15) 177(1-3):109-13

Geier DA Carmody T Kern JK King PG Geier MR A significant relationship between mercury exposure from dental amalgams and urinary porphyrins: a further assessment of the Casa Pia children’s dental amalgam trial. Biometals (2011 Apr) 24(2):215-24

Woods JS Martin MD Leroux BG DeRouen TA Bernardo MF Luis HS Leitao JG Simmonds PL Echeverria D Rue TC Urinary porphyrin excretion in children with mercury amalgam treatment: findings from the Casa Pia Children’s Dental Amalgam Trial. J Toxicol Environ Health A (2009) 72(14):891-6

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 Mar) 94(3):283-90

Sandborgh-Englund G Einarsson C Sandstrom M Ekstrand J Gastrointestinal absorption of metallic mercury. Arch Environ Health (2004 Sep) 59(9):449-54

Pizzichini M Fonzi M Sugherini L Fonzi L Gasparoni A Comporti M Pompella A Release of mercury from dental amalgam and its influence on salivary antioxidant activity. Sci Total Environ (2002 Feb 4) 284(1-3):19-25

Pizzichini M Fonzi M Sugherini L Fonzi L Comporti M Gasparoni A
Pompella A
Release of mercury from dental amalgam and its influence on salivary
antioxidant activity. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol (2000 May-Dec) 42(2-3):94-100

http://www.caulk. com/MSDSDFU/DispersDFU.html. Megalloy has two MSDSs: Megalloy Spherical Alloy or Mercury Dispersalloy has two MSDSs: Dispersalloy Dispersed Phase Alloy or Mercury. MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Date prepared: 9/20/95 Dated Revised 9/24/97

Risk assessment was commissioned by the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, as part of a series of recommendations put forward by a working party which was set up in 1998 to assess the literature about the dangers of mercury from dental amalgam
“A risk assessment be undertaken in order to establish the safety margins between current intake of mercury from dental amalgam and levels at which adverse health effects are likely. This risk assessment should include: -a- A critical evaluation of studies demonstrating adverse effects of exposure to low levels of mercury. –b- Estimation of the exposure to mercury under various scenarios with changing age, diet and numbers of restored tooth surfaces.

Thrombocytopenia in two children after placement of amalgam fillings in primary teeth).Berglund F, Elinder G Program, Sammanfattningar, Svenska Läkarsällskapets Riksstämma 27-29 nov 1991

Mercury allergy resulting from amalgam restorations. Engelman M A J Amer Dent Assoc 66:122-123 (1963)

Chronic illness in association with dental amalgam: Report of two cases. Godfrey M E J Adv Med 3:247-255 (1990)

Amalgam-related chronic ulceration of oral mucosa. Jolly M, Moule A J, Freeman S Br Dent J 160:434-437 (1986)

Exercise-induced anaphylaxis: improvement after removal of amalgam in dental caries. Katsununa T, Iikura Y, Nagakura T, Saitoh H, Akimoto K, Akasawa A, Kindaichi S Ann Allergy 64:472-475 (1990)

A Case of High Mercury exposure from Dental Amalgam. Langworth S, Strömberg R European Journal of Oral Sciences. Jun 1996; 104(3):320-321. ISSN: 0909-8836

Urticaria following a dental silver filling – case report. Markow H New York State J Med 43:1648-1652 (1943)

Three cases of linear lichen planus cused by dental metal compounds. : Sasaki G, Yokozeki H, Katayama I, Nishioka K: J Dermatol 1996 Dec 23:12 890-2

Generalized allergic reaction from silver amalgam fillings Strassburg M, Schubel R : Dtsche Zahnarztliche Zeit 22:3-9 (1967)

A case of hypersensitivity to mercury released from amalgam fillings. Witek E Source: Czas Stomat 22:311-315, (?)

Allergic reaction to mercury after dental treatment. Wright F A C New Zealand Dent J 67:25l-252 (1971)

Description of persons with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units–oral aspects. Bergdahl J, Anneroth G, Stenman E Scand J Dent Res. 1994 Feb; 102(1): 41-5

Long-term mercury excretion in urine after removal of amalgam fillings Begerow J, Zander D, Freier I, Dunemann L Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1994 66:3 209-12

Effect of Replacement of Dental Amalgam on Oral Lichenoid Reactions. Bratel J, Hakeberg M, Jontell M: Journal of Dentistry. Jan-Mar 1996; 24(1-2):41-45

Mercury sensitization in amalgam fillings. Assessment from a dermatologic viewpoint Brehler R, Panzer B, Forck G, Bertram H P Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1993 Apr 2 118:13 451-6

Healing of Lichenoid Reactions Following Removal of Amalgam – a Clinical Follow-up Henriksson E, Mattsson U, Håkansson J:. J Clin Periodont 22(4):287-294 (1995)

The Relevance and Effect of Amalgam Replacement in Subjects with Oral Lichenoid Reactions Ibbotson S H, Speight E L, Macleod R I, Smart E R, Lawrence C M British Journal of Dermatology. Mar 1996; 134 (3):420-423. ISSN: 0007-0963

Resolution of oral lichenoid lesions after replacement of amalgam restorations in patients allergic to mercury compounds.: Laine J, Kalimo K, Forssell H, Happonen R P Br J Dermatol 126(1):10-15

Symptoms before and after proper amalgam removal in relation to serum-globulin reaction to metals. Lichtenberg H Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol 11 No.4. pp 195-203 1996.

Effects of Removing Amalgam Fillings from Patients with Diseases Affecting the Immune SystemLindqvist B, Mörnstad H Medical Science Research. May 1996; 24(5):355-356

Allergy and corrosion of dental materials in patients with oral lichen planus. Lundström I M C Int J Oral Surg 13:16-24 (1984)

Amalgam Associated Oral Lichenoid Reactions: Clinical and Histologic Changes After Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Östman P O, Anneroth G, Skoglund A Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontics. Apr 1996; 81 (4):459-465.

Resolution of lichen planus following removal of amalgam restorations in patients with proven allergy to mercury salts: a pilot study. Smart E R, Macleod R I, Lawrence C M Br Dent J 178(3):108-112 (1995)

The contribution of dental amalgam to mercury in blood. Snapp K R, Boyer D B, Peterson L C, Svare C W J Dent Res. 1989 May; 68(5):780-5

Removal of Dental Mercury: Often an Effective Treatment for the Very Sensitive Patient Zamm A F J Orthomolecular Med 5(53):138-142 (1990

Elimination of symptoms by removal of dental amalgam from mercury poisoned patients, as compared with a control group of average patients. Lichtenberg H J J Orthomol Med 8:145-148 (1993)

Mercury, selenium, and glutathione peroxidase before and after amalgam removal in man. Molin M, Bergman B, Marklund S L, Schütz A, Skerfving Acta Odontol Scand. 1990 Jun; 48(3): 189-202

The relationship between mercury from dental amalgam and oral cavity health. Siblerud R LAnn Dent 49(2):6-10 (1990)

A comparison of mental health of multiple sclerosis patients with silver/mercury dental fillings and those with fillings removed. Siblerud R L Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun; 70(3 Pt 2): 1139-51

Evidence that mercury from silver dental fillings may be an etiological factor in multiple sclerosis. Siblerud R L, Kienholz E Sci Total Environ. 1994 Mar 15; 142(3):191-205

Mercury-Specific Lymphocytes: An Indication of Mercury Allergy in Man. Stejskal V, Forsbeck M, Cederbrant K E, Asteman O J of Clin Immun, Vol. 16, No.1, 1996, pp. 31-40

Idiosyncrasy to metallic mercury, with special reference to amalgam fillings in the Teeth. Bass M HJ Pediat 23:215-218 (1943)

Weidenhammer W Bornschein S Zilker T Eyer F Melchart D Hausteiner C Predictors of treatment outcomes after removal of amalgam fillings: associations between subjective symptoms, psychometric variables and mercury levels. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol (2010 Apr) 38(2):180-9

Lindh U Hudecek R Danersund A Eriksson S Lindvall A Removal of dental amalgam and other metal alloys supported byantioxidant therapy alleviates symptoms and improves quality of life in patients with amalgam-associated ill health. Neuro Endocrinol Lett (2002 Oct-Dec) 23(5-6):459-82

Guttman-Yassky E Weltfriend S Bergman R Resolution of orofacial granulomatosis with amalgam removal. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (2003 May) 17(3):344-7

Pigatto PD Guzzi G Persichini P Barbadillo S Recovery from mercury-induced burning mouth syndrome due to mercury allergy. Dermatitis (2004 Jun) 15(2):75-7

Sterzl I Prochazkova J Hrda P Matucha P Bartova J Stejskal V Removal of dental amalgam decreases anti-TPO and anti-Tg autoantibodies in patients with autoimmune thyroiditis.Neuro Endocrinol Lett (2006 Dec) 27 Suppl 1:25-30

Wojcik DP Godfrey ME Christie D Haley BE Mercury toxicity presenting as chronic fatigue, memory impairment and depression: diagnosis, treatment, susceptibility, and outcomes in a New Zealand general practice setting (1994-2006). Neuro Endocrinol Lett (2006 Aug) 27(4):415-23

Frisk P Danersund A Hudecek R Lindh U Changed clinical chemistry pattern in blood after removal of dental amalgam and other metal alloys supported by antioxidant therapy. Biol Trace Elem Res (2007 Winter) 120(1-3):163-70

Halbach S Vogt S Kohler W Felgenhauer N Welzl G Kremers L Zilker T Melchart D Blood and urine mercury levels in adult amalgam patients of a randomized controlled trial: interaction of Hg species in erythrocytes. Environ Res (2008 May) 107(1):69-78

Melchart D Vogt S Kohler W Streng A Weidenhammer W Kremers L Hickel R Felgenhauer N Zilker T Wuhr E Halbach S Treatment of health complaints attributed to amalgam. J Dent Res (2008 Apr) 87(4):349-53

Gonzalez-Ramirez D Maiorino RM Zuniga-Charles M Xu Z Hurlbut KM Junco-Munoz P Aposhian MM Dart RC Diaz Gama JH Echeverria D et al Sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test for mercury in humans: II. Urinary mercury, porphyrins and neurobehavioralchanges of dental workers in Monterrey, Mexico. J Pharmacol Exp Ther (1995 Jan) 272(1):264-74

Aposhian-HV; Maiorino-RM; Rivera-M; Bruce-DC; Dart-RC; Hurlbut-KM; Levine- Zheng-W; Fernando-Q; Carter-D; et-al J-Toxicol-Clin-Toxicol. 1992; 30(4): 505-28

Urinary Mercury After Administration of 2,3- Dimercaptopropane-1- Sulfonic Acid – Correlation with Dental Amalgam Score. Aposhian HV; Bruce DC; Alter W; Dart RC; Hurlbut KM; Aposhian MM FASEB Journal; 6 (7) 2472-2476 1992

Aposhian MM; Maiorino RM; Xu Z; Aposhian HV Ed P. Collery, J Corbella et al John Libbey Eurotext Ltd Montrouge, France Metal Ions in Biology and Medicine, Vol 4; p363-365 1996 ; Sodium 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonate treatment does not redistribute mercury or lead to the brain of rats.

Sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test for mercury in humans .2. Urinary mercury, porphyrins and neurobehavioral changes of dental workers in Monterrey, Mexico. Gonzalezramirez D; Maiorino RM; Zunigacharles M; Xu ZF; Hurlbut KM; Juncomunoz P; Aposhian MM; Dart RC; Gama JHD; Echeverria D; Woods JS; Aposhian HV Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; 272 (1) p264-274 JAN 1995

Godfrey M & Campbell N., Confirmation of mercury retention and toxicity using DMPS J. Adv. Med. 7(1) 19-30 1994

Kidd RF Results of dental amalgam removal and mercury detoxification using DMPS and neural therapy. Altern Ther Health Med (2000 Jul) 6(4):49-55

Aposhian,H.V.,etal,FASEBJ., 1992,6,2472-6

Torres-Alanis O Garza-Ocanas L Bernal MA Pineyro-Lopez A Urinary excretion of trace elements in humans after sodium 2,3- dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol (2000) 38(7):697-700

Drasch G Boese-O’Reilly S Illig S Increase of renal excretion of organo-mercury compounds like
methlymercury by DMPS (2,3-Dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid, Dimaval). Clin Toxicol (Phila) (2007) 45(3):266-9

Torres-Alanis O Garza-Ocanas L Pineyro-Lopez A Evaluation of urinary mercury excretion after administration of 2,3- dimercapto-1-propane sulfonic acid to occupationally exposed men. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol (1995) 33(6):717-20

Nerudova J Cabelkova Z Frantik E Lukas E Urban P Blaha K Pelclova D Lebedova J Cikrt M Mobilization of mercury by DMPS in occupationally exposed workers and in model experiments on rats: evaluation of body burden. Int J Occup Med Environ Health (2000) 13(2):131-46

American Dental Association, ‘Principle of ethics and code of professional conduct’, Section l-J: Representation of care and fees, 211 E

Toxic Teeth: The Chronic Mercury Poisoning of Modern Man Murray J Vimy Chemistry & Industry 2 January 1995 17

Dr. Harold Loe, the Director of the National Institute of Dental Research ( NIDR), stated in the September, 1993 edition of “Dental Products Report”:

Quintessence Volume 26, Number 3, 1995

Dental Amalgam and Mercury in Dentistry Report of an NHMRC working party March 1999 NHMRC National Health & Medical Research Council

Australian Risk Assessment of Mercury Exposure from Dental Amalgam Published August 2000
Prepared by Chem Affairs Pty Ltd PO Box 890 Lane Cove NSW 1595 Published August 2000