The frequency of mercury intolerance in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy controls

Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission

It was claimed by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)) in a report to the EU-Commission that "....no risks of adverse systemic effects exist and the current use of dental amalgam does not pose a risk of systemic disease..." [1, available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_016.pdf].SCENIHR disregarded the toxicology of mercury and did not include most important scientific studies in their review. But the real scientific data show that:(a) Dental amalgam is by far the main source of human total mercury body burden. This is proven by autopsy studies which found 2-12 times more mercury in body tissues of individuals with dental amalgam. Autopsy studies are the most valuable and most important studies for examining the amalgam-caused mercury body burden.(b) These autopsy studies have shown consistently that many individuals with amalgam have toxic levels of mercury in their brains or kidneys.(c) There is no correlation between mercury levels in blood or urine, and the levels in body tissues or the severity of clinical symptoms. SCENIHR only relied on levels in urine or blood.(d) The half-life of mercury in the brain can last from several years to decades, thus mercury accumulates over time of amalgam exposure in body tissues to toxic levels. However, SCENIHR state that the half-life of mercury in the body is only "20-90 days".(e) Mercury vapor is about ten times more toxic than lead on human neurons and with synergistic toxicity to other metals.(f) Most studies cited by SCENIHR which conclude that amalgam fillings are safe have severe methodical flaws.

Comments on the Article “The Toxicology of Mercury and Its Chemical Compounds” by Clarkson and Magos (2006)

Clarkson and Magos (2006) provide their perspectives on the toxicology of mercury vapor and dental amalgam. As scientists who are involved in preparing a German federal guideline regarding dental amalgam, we welcome additional scientific data on this issue. However, Clarkson and Magos do not present all the relevant studies in their review. The additional data provided here show that: (a) Dental amalgam is the main source of human total mercury body burden, because individuals with amalgam have 2-12 times more mercury in their body tissues compared to individuals without amalgam; (b) there is not necessarily a correlation between mercury levels in blood, urine, or hair and in body tissues, and none of the parameters correlate with severity of symptoms; (c) the half-life of mercury deposits in brain and bone tissues could last from several years to decades, and thus mercury accumulates over time of exposure; (d) mercury, in particular mercury vapor, is known to be the most toxic nonradioactive element, and is toxic even in very low doses, and (e) some studies which conclude that amalgam fillings are safe for human beings have important methodogical flaws. Therefore, they have no value for assessing the safety of amalgam.

Do adverse effects of dental materials exist? What are the consequences, and how can they be diagnosed and treated?

OBJECTIVES

All dental biomaterials release substances into the oral environment to a varying degree. Various preclinical biocompatibility test systems have been introduced, aiming at an evaluation of the potential risks of dental materials. Potential pathogenic effects of released substances from dental materials have been demonstrated. For the biocompatibility of a biomaterial, it is not only important that minimal diffusable substances are released when it is in body contact--the material must also fulfill the function for which it has been designed. This is also very much dependent on the material properties and its handling properties. The aim of this review was to generate an overview of the present status concerning adverse reactions among patients and personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed using a defined search strategy in order to evaluate all MEDLINE-literature published between 1996 and 2006.

RESULTS

The compilation of the literature available has revealed that the majority of studies have been carried out on patients compared with personnel. Adverse reactions towards dental materials do occur, but the prevalence and incidence are difficult to obtain. The results were essentially based on cohort studies. Clinical trials, especially randomized-controlled trials, are in the minority of all studies investigated, with the exception of composite and bonding studies, where clinical trials, but not randomized-controlled trials, represent the majority of studies. Patients and personnel were treated separately in the manuscript. Amalgam studies show the lowest degree of verified material-related diagnosis. Even if objective symptoms related to adverse reactions with polymer resin-based materials have been reported, postoperative sensitivity dominates reports concerning composites/bondings. Verified occupational effects among dental personnel show a low frequency of allergy/toxic reactions. Irritative hand eczema seemed to be more common than in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient- and personnel-related studies are of variable quality and can be improved. There is a need for a better description of the content of materials. A registry for adverse effects of dental materials would be useful to detect the occurrence of low-incidence events.