Robert Gammal BDS.
Written for ASOMAT  June 1998 
Used in notes to dental students at
School of Dentistry & Oral Health
Griffith University 2009
Modified Dec 2009 – modified for this website 2022

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the USA,
lists Mercury as the Third most hazardous substance.
Arsenic is the most toxic and Lead is Second.

What really is that ‘Silver’ filling?

Dental amalgam is a mixture of mercury with an alloy of silver, tin, zinc and copper.  The ‘Silver Fillings’ in your mouth are about 50% mercury as this is the amount of mercury used in the mix. An average amalgam filling weighs 2 – 6 grams. Thus 1 -3 grams of mercury per filling!

As there is a continuous release of mercury from dental amalgam, dentists must dispose of scrap amalgam as toxic waste following strict guidelines.  It is illegal to put it in the garbage, the sewer or the drain. 

In fact, it seems that the only legal place to keep this material, is in the mouth of a living person!  (It is estimated that 11kg mercury per year is released from each crematorium chimney!) 1 ,2 ,3 

How Much Mercury is Too Much?

Mercury escapes from amalgam in the forms of mercury vapour, elemental mercury and mercury ions.  The rate of release of mercury is increased by an increase in temperature, friction and electrical currents. Levels remain elevated for about 90 minutes after such stimulation.[4] 

The dental authorities claim that only a minute amount of mercury is released from amalgam fillings and although this is true, it is critical to quantify what a little bit is. The Canadian Government health authority did this well. The fact is that if you have 4 or more amalgam fillings the amount of mercury you will absorb may far exceed the tolerable daily intake in most countries. 

Mercury is a cumulative poison.  It stays in your body and the levels are topped up continuously.  This type of poisoning is called micromercurialism.  The earliest symptoms are usually sub-clinical and neurological, namely fatigue, headaches, forgetfulness, reduced short term memory, poor concentration, shyness and timidity, confusion, rapid mood swings, unprovoked anger, depression and suicidal tendencies. 5 ,6 ,7 

A variety of scientific studies 8 ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,13 ,14 indicates that 20mcg/m3 to 150mcg/m3 of mercury vapour may be found in the mouth of a person with amalgam fillings. 

1 mcg of mercury vapour is 5 times greater than the level quoted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as safe.15   It is 50 times greater than the level regarded as an acute exposure by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in the USA.16  

There is NO safe level of mercury vapour. 

World Health Organization stated in 1991 that for mercury vapour, there is no known “no-observable-effect level (NOEL)”.17 In other words all levels of mercury vapour are harmful.  The WHO also demonstrated that dental amalgam is the single greatest source of mercury to the general population – up to 10 times more than from all other sources combined

The daily dietary intake of mercury from air and water is about 0. From most foods it is about 0.3mcg/day. From fish and seafood it is about 2.3mcg/day. From dental amalgam it is up to 17mcg/day. This figure was revised in 2003 and the accepted mercury daily intake from amalgam fillings is now 27mcg/day. ie ten times more than all other sources combined!

Latex paints, which contained mercury, had to be taken off the market after releasing only 2-3mcg/m3.

The Richardson Report, a study completed for Health Canada in 1995, found that the tolerable daily intake of mercury was exceeded in different age groups with the following number of amalgam fillings18:

adults – 4,
teenagers – 3,
children and toddlers – 1.  

Retention of mercury in the body is estimated to be 1mcg/filling/day.11, 12   Up to 80% of inhaled mercury vapour is absorbed through the lungs.19 ,13 A percentage of mercury vapour adheres to the lining of the nose and mouth and is transported directly into the brain.6

Mercury from amalgam easily crosses the blood brain barrier and can damage any part of the central nervous system. 6 Some mercury is also transported along nerve fibres (retrograde axonal transport) back to the brain. 20 ,21 ,22 ,23 ,24   Mercury from amalgam has been found all the way down the spinal cord. 6  The levels of mercury in the brain are directly proportional to the number of amalgam fillings in the mouth.8,10,12   Minute amounts of mercury in the brain will cause the same type of damage as is found in the brains of patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. 25   Low levels of mercury in the brain will severely disturb cellular function and reduce the growth of nerve fibres. 6

Dentists regularly implant amalgam fillings directly into the bone in the form of retrograde root fillings (a filling placed at the end of the root). Mercury can pass readily from such an implant into the brain. Would any other branch of medicine condone such an absurd practice?  One amalgam manufacturer, Caulk, states that amalgam is contraindicated for use as a retrograde filling, yet the Australian dental authorities teach and condone this practice!  26 

Mercury from amalgam may be found in all cells of the body (highest concentrations are usually in the kidney, liver and brain).  There will also be a very high concentration of mercury in the jaw bones and the soft tissue lining the mouth.

Blood and urine sampling are poor ways of estimating body burdens of mercury as most of the mercury is retained in the cells of the body (known as Retention Toxicity).  The dental associations have claimed that the only way to test body burdens of mercury is in the blood or the urine. In reality, this is the best place to look if you do NOT want to find mercury. DMPS is a chelating agent, which will remove some mercury from cells and bind it in such a way that it can be excreted.  Changes in urine mercury levels can then be measured.  27 ,28

Mercury from amalgam does not cause a specific disease –

it causes mercury poisoning, which is characterized by a wide range of symptoms. 
Many organs and functions of the body may be affected.

The following are some basic facts from the published research.  Believe it or not this is just the tip of the iceberg of research demonstrating the disastrous effects of mercury.  The amount of mercury released from your amalgam fillings can easily cause any or all of the effects listed below:

  • Mercury from amalgam fillings has been shown to cause a 50% reduction in kidney filtration after just two months in the mouth (animal studies) 29   Kidney damage from mercury has been reported often in the literature.30 ,31 ,32 ,33 ,34 
  • The most common symptoms of long-term low-level mercury poisoning are headaches and psycho-emotional disturbances.  Muscle twitches and body shakes are later symptoms and thus more severe.
  • Research from 1993 onwards has shown that mercury from amalgam fillings will cause an increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the gut and mouth. 35, 36, 37    The number of antibiotic resistant bacteria fall rapidly after the amalgams are removed.
  • Mercury from amalgams can cause a weakening in the wall of the small blood vessels (micro-angiopathies) – this results in a reduction of blood supply to the tissues resulting in reduced function and/or cell death.6
  • Heart function may be affected by mercury and electrical currents from amalgam.38 , 39 
  • Some reports 40 ,14 suggest that elevated cholesterol levels are related to mercury in the body.  It has been noted that cholesterol levels drop after removal of amalgam fillings.
  • Although the dental associations claim that less than 1% of the population show true allergy to amalgam, the latest research41 indicates that the real figure is closer to 13%.  Assuming that only half the population in Australia has amalgam fillings, this would mean that over 1,700,000 people might be sick due to an allergic reaction to these fillings.  Since the medical profession as a whole do not acknowledge the dangers of amalgam, it is most likely that the majority of these people are misdiagnosed and therefore mistreated.
  • True allergy is only one type of immune reaction.42  Allergy is by o means the only effect that mercury has on the body.
  • Mercury will always have a detrimental effect on the immune system. This creates an environment in the body for other diseases to develop. 43 ,44 , 45 ,46 ,47 ,48 ,49 ,50 
  • Mercury binds to proteins, and thus makes them look like foreign material to the cells of the immune system. 50,51  Overt auto-immune diseases may then ensue.
  • There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers discussing the damaging effects that mercury has on the immune system.50
  • Mercury from amalgam may cause an increase in allergies, skin rashes and itching. 52 ,53 
  • Mercury will bind strongly to selenium, a trace element needed for a wide variety of enzyme functions.  Latest research indicates a direct relationship between reduced blood selenium levels and an increase in the rate of some types of cancer.54 ,55 ,56 ,57 ,58 ,59 
  • Many studies indicate that selenium supplementation will help to protect from the damaging effects of mercury.60 ,61 ,62 ,63 
  • Mercury binds to haemoglobin in the blood and reduces its capacity to transport oxygen.40 This may be one of the causes of chronic fatigue.
  • Mercury at levels as low as 1 part per ten million will destroy the walls of red blood cells.64 ,65 ,43
    In May 1998 the British Government recommended that dentists not place or remove amalgam in pregnant women.
  • Mercury from amalgam fillings will cross the placenta and concentrate in the foetus.66 ,67 ,68 ,69 ,70 ,71 ,72 ,73 ,74 ,75 ,76 
  • Mercury from amalgam can also be transported via the breast milk and concentrate in the body of the feeding infant.
  • The levels of mercury in the body of a fetus or new born infant is directly proportional to the number of amalgam fillings in the mother’s mouth. 96, 97
    • Breast milk increases the bioavailability of mercury to the infant.77 ,78 
    • Prenatal exposure to mercury may cause developmental defects and may cause permanent neurological damage in the unborn child.69,70
    • Tissue levels of mercury in the foetus, new-born and infant are directly proportional to the number of amalgam fillings in the mother’s mouth.79 
    • Mercury is mutagenic – it can cause single strand breaks in DNA..80 ,81 ,82 ,83 ,84    
    • Female dental personnel exposed to mercury, exhibit twice the rate of miscarriage, infertility and still births as compared to the rest of the population. 58,59,12,49

If you are pregnant, never allow amalgam fillings to be placed in your mouth.

Do not go into a dental surgery where amalgam is used, as the mercury vapour levels in the air may be harmful to the foetus.16

Electrical Effects

A more in depth look at the electrical effects found in the mouth can be found Here

Electric currents, generated by the interaction of different metals in the mouth, can be measured in micro-amps.  The central nervous system operates in the range of nano-amps.  This is in the order of 1,000 times less than the currents generated in the mouth. 

This is in the same order of magnitude as that induced in a person standing under high-tension power cables.85 ,86 ,87 

Electrical currents, formed by placing gold into a mouth with amalgam fillings, will create an increase in electrical currents in the fillings, resulting in an increase in mercury released from all of the fillings.

Placing a gold crown over an amalgam filling may cause a four-fold increase in the amount of mercury being driven through the tooth.  62, 44   Gold crowns, on top of amalgam, create a permanent galvanic cell.  Amalgam is still the most commonly used material to build a core for a crown.  This practice is contra-indicated by the manufacturers Caulk and Ivoclar yet the specialist prothodontists in Australia still cling to this antiquated practice. Clearly the specialists in crown and bridge work who continue to use amalgam as a core under cast crowns would have a serious medico-legal problem

NO APPROVAL FOR AMALGAM

Dental fillings are an implant of materials into living tissues.  

Neither the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), have approved mixed dental amalgam as an implant material or as a filling. 

They have NEVER assigned an approval to the amalgam filling which is inserted into your head.  Instead, they assign an approval to the individual components – the alloy and the mercury!

WHY? because it slots into a grandfather clause because it existed before TGA or FDA approvals were needed!

Effects on Dentists

Although the dental authorities make claims about amalgam safety, they have not presented one scientific paper which indicates that this material is toxicologically safe. 

In dental surgeries where amalgam is used, the mercury vapour levels may be so high as to be hazardous to health.  Dental associations have said that if mercury from amalgam is so dangerous for the patient, then why is it that the dentists, who are exposed to far greater levels of mercury, are not sick? This claim is not substantiated by the scientific literature. 

Mercury’s effects on dental personnel Here

In fact, dental personnel show a range of medical effects different from the rest of the population.

  • Twice the rate of glioblastomas than the rest of the population. 90 
  • Reduced IQ levels have been demonstrated 91 ,92 ,93 
  • Psycho-motor and psycho-emotional studies of dentists, demonstrate a severe drop in scores compared to the rest of the population. 94 
  • Twice the rate of suicide of any professional group.
  • 20% of Canadian dentists are on permanent disability for psychological reasons 9

Detoxification and Amalgam Removal

Clinical experience has demonstrated that people affected by mercury from dental amalgams will often enhance the benefits of amalgam removal if removal is combined with a detoxification routine prior to, during and after the amalgam removal. 

Removal of amalgam fillings has been shown to substantially lower the body burden of mercury and more HERE 88 ,89     Protocols do exist for the safer removal of dental amalgam from your mouth.  Failure to follow these guidelines may result in exposure to an unacceptable level of mercury.  Removing old amalgam fillings must be performed with extreme care.  Note that removing the amalgam fillings is NOT removing mercury from the body.  It is merely the first and most important step to lowering the body burden.  After the amalgam is removed, the body can start to dump its mercury load.

Sweden bans all use of mercury.

The Government decided to introduce a blanket ban on mercury. The ban means that the use of dental amalgam in fillings will cease and that it will no longer be permitted to place products containing mercury on the Swedish market.

“Sweden is now leading the way in removing and protecting the environment from mercury, which is non-degradable. The ban is a strong signal to other countries and a Swedish contribution to EU and UN aims to reduce mercury use and emissions,” says Minister for the Environment Andreas Carlgren.

 References

 1 Health risks from exposure to mercury from crematoria. The Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute Report, 51M 1/92.
 2 More mercury from crematoria : Nature 1990 Aug 16;346(6285):615.
 3 Comment on: Nature 1990 Oct 18;347(6294):623    Nature. 1991 Feb 28; 349(6312)
 4 Lorscheider, F.L., Vimy, M.J., and Summers, A.O. FASEB Journal   (April 1995).
 5 Stortebecker.   Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam  1985
 6 Stortebecker, P.. The Lancet, May 27, 1989.
 7 Mercury Contamination In the Dental Office. . NYS Dental Journal November 1979
 8 Magnus Nylander,.   ICBM 1988
 9 Svare CW et.al. J. Dent. Res.60(9):1668-1671,1981
 10 Ott K et. al. Dtsch. Zahnarztl Z 39(9):199-205, 1984
 11 Vimy MJ. Lorscheider FL   J. Dent Res. 64(8):1069- 1071.,1985
 12 Matts Hanson.J. Orthomolecular Psychiatry  Vo12 No 3  Sept 1983
 13 Langan,Fan,Hoos.   JADA Vol 115  December 1987., 867
 14 Sam Queen;  Chronic Mercury Toxicity; New Hope Against an Endemic Disease.
 15 The US EPA maximum safe level is only   0.3 mcg /m3
 16 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service recently published its Toxicological Profile for Mercury (Update) [ATSDR. TP-93/10].  Nov. 1994.
 17 World Health Organisation Criteria 118   published 1991.
 18 G. Mark Richardson PhD.,Medical Devices Bureau, Environmental Health Directorate,  Health Canada December 1995.  Later published in Human and Ecological Risk Assesment  Vol2 No4: 709-61,  1996
 19 Koos et al.,. Am J Obstet And Gynecol.,  1976:126;390-409
 20 Stortebecker, P. Mercury poisoning from dental amalgam through a direct nose-brain transport. The Lancet, May 27, 1989.
 21 Arvidson, B Acta Neurol Scand. 82(4):234-7. Oct 1990.
 22 Arvidson B. Muscle Nerve. 15(10):1089-1094, Oct 1992.
 23 Aschner: Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) (1986 Nov) 59(5):349-55
 24 Retrograde Axonal Transport of Mercury in Primary Sensory Neurons Innervating the Tooth Pulp in the Rat. Neurosci Lett. 115(1):29-32. Jul 17, 1990
 25 Neurosci Lett. 115(1):29-32. Jul 17, 1990
 26 http://www.caulk.com/MSDSDFU/DispersDFU.html
 27 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
 28 Godfrey M. Campbell N.  J. Adv. Medicine 7(1) 1994
 29 Boyd, N. D., H. Benediktsson, M. J. Vimy,  D. E. Hooper,  F. L. Lorscheider. Am. J. Physiol. 261   (Regulatory  Integrative Comp. Physiol. 30):  R1010-R1014, 1991
 30 Nielson, J et al: “Mercuric Chloride-Induced Kidney Damage in Mice: Time Course, and Effect of Dose, “ J Toxicol Environ Health, 1991, 34(4); 469-483.
 31 Garcia JD  Yang MG  Belo PS  Wang JH  Carbon-mercury bond breakage in milk, cerebrum, liver, and kidney of rats fed methyl mercuric chloride.  Proc Soc Exp Biol Med (1974 May) 146(1):190-3
 32 Andres GA  Brentjens JR  Autoimmune diseases of the kidney. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med (1984 Jul) 176(3)
 33 Druet E  Houssin D  Druet P Mercuric chloride nephritis depends on host rather than kidney strain.  Clin Immunol Immunopathol (1983 Oct) 29(1):141-5
 34 Hirszel P  Michaelson JH  Dodge K  Yamase H  Bigazzi PE  Mercury-induced autoimmune glomerulonephritis in inbred rats. II. Surv Synth        Pathol Res (1985) 4(5-6):412-22
 35 Summers AO,  Wireman  J., Vimy MJ.,  Lorscheider Fl.,   Marshal B.,  Levy  Sb., Bennet S., Billard L.     J. Of  Anti-Microbial Agents  And Chemotherapy  37[4]:825-34   April 1993
 36 Brunker P  Rother D  Sedlmeier R  Klein J  Mattes R  Altenbuchner J   Mol Gen Genet (1996 Jun 12) 251(3)
 37 Williams MV  Environ Mol Mutagen (1996) 27(1):30-3
 38 Ziff S., Silver Dental Fillings – The Toxic Time Bomb, Aurora Press, New York 1984
 39 The Missing Link-   by  Dr Michael F Ziff DDS   & Sam Ziff
 40 Huggins H.,   Its All In You Head.1990
 41 An Epidemiological Study of Mercury Sensitization. Sato, K.  Kusada, Y.  Zhang, Q.  Yanagihara, M.  Ueda, K Morihiro, H. Ishii, Y. Mori, T. Hirai, T. Yomiyama, T; Iida, K. Allergology International, 46:201‑6, 1997.
 42 JADA, Vol. 122,   Aug. 1991, p. 54
 43 Abraham J,  Svare C , Frank C. J. Dent. Res. 63(1):71-73,1984
 44 Malmström  C., Hansson M., Nylander M.,   Conference on Trace Elements in Health and DIsease.  Stockholm  May 25-1992
 45 Matts Hanson. ICBM conference Colorado 1988
 46 Hal Huggins. Observations From The Metabolic Fringe. ICBM conf. Colarado 1988
 47 Verchaeve L et al., Mutation Res., 1985:157; 221-226.
 48 Pelletier L et al., Eur. J Immun., 1985: 460-465
 49 Amalgam Hazards  – an assessment of research  By Irwin Mandel DDS   Assoc. Dean for Research  School of  Dental and Oral Surgery  Columbia University   New York   Published JADA  Vol.  122  August 1991
 50 Hultman P  Johansson U  Turley SJ  Lindh U  Enestrom S  Pollard KM  FASEB J (1994 Nov) 8(14):1183-90
 51 Stejskal VD  Forsbeck M  Cederbrant KE  Asteman O    Mercury-specific lymphocytes: an indication of mercury allergy in  man.    J Clin Immunol  1996 Jan 16(1):31-40
 52 Stejskal VDM, Cederbrant K, Lindvall A & Forsbeck M   Melisa – an in vitro tool for the study of metal allergy.   Toxic in Vitro 8(5):991-1000 (1994)
 53 Veron et al Amalgam Dentaires et allergies J Biol Buccale., 1986 : 14
 54 Dr W. Kostler., President of the Austrian Oncology Society.  Paper presented at the World Congress on Cancer.  April 1994  Sydney Australia
 55 Clark LC   Combs GF Jr   Turnbull BW Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin.    JAMA (1996 Dec 25) 276(24):1957-63
 56 van den Brandt PA   Goldbohm RA   Veer P    Bode P   Dorant E   Hermus RJ    Sturmans F  
A prospective cohort study on selenium status and the risk of lung cancer.   Cancer Res (1993 Oct 15) 53 (20)4860-5
 57 Fleet JC    Dietary selenium repletion may reduce cancer incidence in people at high risk who live in areas  with low soil selenium.  Nutr Rev (1997Jul)5(7):277-9
 58 Combs GF Jr   Clark LC   Turnbull BW   Reduction of cancer mortality and incidence by selenium supplementation. Med Klin (1997 Sep 15) 92 Suppl
 59 Yu B   Wang M   Li D      The relationship between selenium and immunity in large bowel cancer   Chung Hua Wai Ko Tsa Chih (1996 Jan) 34(1):50-3
 60  Watanabe C   Udono T   Shioiri H    Satoh H     Change in the level of tissue selenium after a single administration of mercuric chloride in mice.   Bull Environ Contam Toxicol (1993 Jul) 51(1):24-9
 61 Psarras V   Derand T  Nilner K   Effect of selenium on mercury vapour released from dental amalgams: an in vitro study.  Swed Dent J (1994) 18(1-2):15-23
 62 Ellingsen DG   Nordhagen HP Thomassen Y  Urinary selenium excretion in workers with low exposure to mercury vapour.  J Appl Toxicol (1995 Jan-Feb) 15(1):33-6
 63 Lindh U   Danersund A   Lindvall A     Selenium protection against toxicity from cadmium and mercury studied at the cellular level.  Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand) (1996 Feb) 42(1):39-48
 64 Dr Walter J Clifford Proceedings of the First World Congress on Cancer Sydney 1984
 65 KuhnertP, Kunhert BRR and Erkard P Am. J. Obstet and Gynecol.,139:209-212., 1981
 66 EPA Mercury Health Effects Update Health Issue Assessment.  Final report 1984 EOA-600/8- 84f. USEPA,  Office of Health and Environmental Assessment Washington DC 20460
 67 Gordon – Proceedings of Intl conference on Mercury  Hazards in Dental Practice  Sept. 2-4 Glasgow 1981
 68 Lee, L.P. and Dixon Effects of Mercury on Spermatogenesis  J Pharmacol Exp Thera 1975: 194(1); 171-181.
 69 – VimyMJ, TakahashiY, LorscheiderFL   Maternal -Fetal Distribution of Mercury Released From Dental  Amalgam Fillings. 1990  published in FASEB
 70 BrodskyJB.   Occupational exposure to Mercury in dentistry and pregnancy outcome. JADA 111(11):779- 780.,  1985
 71 Till et al. Zahnarztl. Welt reform 1978:87;1130-1134.
 72 Mohamed et al. J. Androl.,7(1):11-15.,1986.
 73 Inouye M., Murao K., Kajiwara Y., Neurobehav.Toxicol Teratol. ,1985:7;227-232
 74 Koos et al., Mercury toxicity in pregnant women, fetus and newborn infant. Am J Obstet And Gynecol.,  1976:126;390-409
 75 Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of Mercury toxicity. The biochemistry of  Mercury in the  environment. Nriagu, J.O.Ed Amsterdam Elsevier, 503-18,1979
 76 Babich et al ., Environ Res., 1985:37;253-286
 77 Vimy, MJ; Hooper, DE; King, WW; Lorscheider, FL.  Biological Trace Element Res., 56:143‑52, 1997
 78 Oskarsson, A; Schultz, A; Skerfving, S; Hallen, IP; Ohlin, B;  Arch Environ Health, 51(3):234‑51  1996.
 79 Drasch, G; Schupp, I; Hofl, H; Reinke, R; Roider, G.  Pediatrics, 153(8):607‑10,1994.
 80 Hansen,Stern,  A survey of metal induced mutagenicity in vitro and in vivo J Amer Coll Toxicol., 1984: 3; 381-430
 81 Babich Devans Stotzky,  The mediation of mutagenicity and clastogenicity of heavy metals by physiochemical factors.            Environ. Res., 1985:37; 253-286
 82 Poma K  Kirsch-Volders M  Susanne C Mutagenicity study on mice given mercuric chloride.  J. Appl Toxicol (1981 Dec) 1(6):314-6
 83 Gebhart E Chromosome Damage In Individuals Exposed to Heavy Metals Curr Top Environ Toxicol Chem (1985)             8:213-25
 84 Ariza ME  Williams MV Mutagenesis of AS52 cells by low concentrations of lead(II) and mercury(II) Environ Mol Mutagen (1996) 27(1):30-3
 85 Marxkors R. Das Deutsche Zahn rztebl. 24, 53,   117 and 170, 1970
 86 Sheppard AR and EisenbudM New York University Press. 1977
 87 Mareck and Hockman..  Corosion 1974:23;1000-1006.
 88 Bergerow, J; Zander, D; Freier, I; Dunemann, L Long‑Term Mercury Excretion in Urine After Removal of Amalgam             Fillings.Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 66(3):209‑212, 1994.
 89 . Bjorkman, L; Sandborgh‑Englund, G; Ekstrand, J.      Mercury in Saliva and Feces After Removal of Amalgam FillingsToxicol Appl Pharmacol, 144(1):156‑162,May 1997.
 90 Nylander et al.Fourth International Symposium Epidemiology  in Occupational Health.,Como Italy Sept 1985
 91 Joel Butler  “ Neuropsychological Dysfunctioning Associated with the Dental Office Environment”.    Professor of  Psychology at the University of North Texas.
 92 Echeverria, D; et al Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17(2):161-168, 1995.
 93 Gonzalez-Ramirez, D. Et al.. J   Pharmacol Exp Therap. 272:264-274,1995
 94 Skare: Scand J Work Environ Health (1990 Oct) 16(5):340-7
 95 J. Can.. Dent 1994 Special Report
96 Drasch G Schupp I Hofl H Reinke R Roider G Eur J Pediatr (1994 Aug.) 153(8):607-10
97 Silver concentrations in human tissues. Their dependence on dental amalgam and other factors. Drasch et. al., (1995). J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 9:82-87.(8825980)