The Dentist’s Health: Evaluating Occupational Risks From The Use Of Amalgam

By David Kennedy, DDS, and Amanda Just

drill-box-300x166

Every occupation exposes workers to chronic conditions and situations that have an impact on overall health. For example, violin players and other musicians are known to suffer high rates of carpal tunnel syndrome (a musculoskeletal injury) due to the repetitive hand movements and positioning often used when playing their instruments. Obviously, dentistry also involves routine techniques and materials that can result in health issues. Fortunately, in the same way musicians can change their practices to protect themselves from some of the adverse effects of carpal tunnel, dentists can also change their practices to protect themselves from certain occupational health risks.

Specifically, among the materials regularly handled in dental offices, mercury stands out as a notoriously harmful substance. In fact, a report from the World Health Organization warns, “It may cause harmful effects to the nervous, digestive, respiratory, immune systems and to the kidneys, besides causing lung damage…Recent studies suggest that mercury may have no threshold below which some adverse effects do not occur.”

Many dentists, dental staff, and dental students do not realize that a variety of procedures involving manipulation of an old or new amalgam will expose them to levels of mercury that pose an immediate threat to their health unless they take precautions such as instituting work practices and engineering controls to minimize exposure. Research has confirmed adverse outcomes in dentists and dental personnel attributed to occupational mercury vapor and amalgam particulate exposure. This is largely because dangerous levels of mercury are generated in the dental workplace by numerous everyday procedures.

Scientific evidence has associated mercury with a variety of human health problems, including loss of IQ with prenatal exposure, and likewise, research on dentists, dental students, and dental workers has established that toxic harm can occur. To illustrate this point, a 2012 study from Yale University School of Medicine’s Dr. Thomas G. Duplinsky and Dr. Domenic V. Cicchetti reports a high rate of the use of prescription medication in male dentists and relates it to occupational mercury exposure:

Dentists demonstrated significantly more prescription utilization of specific illness medications than did Controls, for the following disease categories: Neuropsychological, Neurological, Respiratory, and Cardiovascular. The greater majority of pediatric and general practice dentists still use mercury amalgam restorations. This places them at greater risk than the general population for those disorders, as well as threatening the future health of America’s children and adults who continue to receive silver amalgam restorations.

feb2014

A series of other studies have validated this concern, as data has shown that exposure to mercury can cause behavioral, psychological, and cognitive impacts on dental workers.

Moreover, genetic variables have been linked to dental workers, mercury levels, and neurobehavioral factors. A common genetic trait known as the CPOX4 polymorphism has been identified as a factor in neurological damage from extremely low mercury exposure in dentists and dental personnel, as well as in children with amalgam fillings. Another study conducted on dental workers even explains that “chronic sub toxic levels of inorganic mercury appear to produce mild changes in short-term nonverbal recall and heightened distress generally, and particularly in categories of obsessive compulsion, anxiety and psychoticism.”

Furthermore, mercury is also known for being toxic to the kidney, and Germany, Finland, Austria, and Canada have worked to reduce the use of dental mercury amalgam fillings for patients with kidney problems and other populations. To relate this issue to dental workers, consider the results of a 1988 study which evaluated kidney function in dental personnel exposed to mercury compared to workers exposed to lead, cadmium, and chromium. The study concluded that the dentists and dental assistants appeared to have a higher risk of kidney function disturbance than the other industrial workers. A study using sheep found a remarkable decline in kidney function within just two months of receiving multiple amalgam fillings. More recently, loss of kidney function has also been linked to the number and size of amalgam fillings.

Another area that has received much attention is the possible reproductive hazards to female dental personnel. It is known that mercury can have a damaging influence on the developing brain and neurological system, which impacts children, pregnant women, and women of childbearing age. Thus, the dangers of exposure to mercury for pregnant dental workers have been recognized, as well as fertility issues and menstrual cycle disorders.

Other research confirms reproductive dangers caused by occupational use of mercury. The Illinois Teratogen Information Service has reported that pregnant women should avoid all significant mercury exposure and recommended greater caution for women of childbearing age. A 1999 study from Canada noted, “Pregnant women should not work in areas with high levels of mercury vapor. The recommended threshold limit value of 0.05 ug/m3 for mercury vapor may not provide sufficient protection for fetuses. Therefore, women of childbearing age should not be exposed to mercury vapor concentrations of 0.01mg/m3 or greater.”

Dental workers and risks of reactions to mercury or mercury allergies have also been studied. It is estimated that approximately 21 million Americans are allergic to mercury, and studies establish that exposure to dental mercury amalgam correlates with higher prevalence of mercury allergies. Not surprisingly, reactions to mercury have been related to dental personnel for dermatitis, melanoma, and skin diseases. One study even specifies hazards of mercury allergies for dental students: “The fact that the dental students who were the volunteers in this study received only a small fraction of the exposure to mercury that the practicing dentist receives does emphasize the potential of this allergen in actual dental practice.”

In addition to the concerns about mercury levels in the dental office and the exposure of workers there, a variety of studies have called for protective measures to be taken in the dental office as a means of limiting mercury releases. A 2013 study led by Robin Warwick states, “To maximize safety, dental schools should train students to remove amalgam only while using water spray and high volume suction. Alternatively, students should use appropriate occupational hygiene personal protective equipment during amalgam removals.” Unfortunately, many dental students cannot comply with these work practices and engineering controls in their operative technique laboratories.

Taken together, scientific data clearly indicates that the use of mercury in dentistry can be detrimental to dentists and their staff. Many factors contribute to increased incidences of disease and health conditions among dentists, but mercury poisoning is a threat that can be easily avoided by the use of current alternatives to amalgam filling materials.

Perhaps a 2003 study by risk assessment expert Dr. G. Mark Richardson summarizes this issue perfectly: “Various countries are moving to limit the use of amalgam as a dental restorative material in order to protect dental patients from Hg

[mercury] exposure. However, dentists’ occupational exposure should also be considered as a justification for reduced amalgam use.”

Many of the key references cited in this article are available upon request to the author. davidkennedydds@gmail.com


  1. Hand and arm injuries: Carpal tunnel syndrome.  Part 4: Musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) prevalent in performers.http://www.mesacc.edu/~juafj03991/cis105/lectures/carpal_tunnel.pdf
  2. World Health Organization.  Mercury in Health Care: Policy Paper.  Geneva, Switzerland; August 2005. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf.  Accessed February 17, 2013.
  3. Richardson GM.  Inhalation of mercury-contaminated particulate matter by dentists: an overlooked occupational risk. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2003; 9(6): 1519-1531.
  4. Stonehouse CA, Newman AP.  Mercury vapour release from a dental aspirator. Br Dent J.2001; 190(10): 558-560.
  5. Windham B.  Research: occupational mercury poisoning in dentistry. The Natural Recovery Plan.  http://www.thenaturalrecoveryplan.com/articles/research-mercury-dentistry.html. Accessed February 18, 2013.
  6. White RR, Brandt RL. Development of mercury hypersensitivity among dental students.JADA. 1976; 92(6):1204-7.
  7. Nimmo A, Werley MS, Martin JS, Tansy MF. Particulate inhalation during the removal of amalgam restorations. J Prosth Dent. 1990; 63(2):228-33.
  8. Fabrizio E, Vanacore N, Valente M, Rubino A, Meco G. High prevalence of extrapyramidal signs and symptoms in a group of Italian dental technicians.  BMC Neurol.  2007; 7(1): 24.
  9. Iano FG, Sobrinho S, Silva TLD, Pereira MA, Figueiredo PJM, Alberguini LBA, Granjeiro JM. Optimizing the procedure for mercury recovery from dental amalgam. Braz Oral Res.  2008; 22(2): 119-124.
  10. Johnson KF. Mercury hygiene. Dent Clin North Am.  1978; 22(3): 477.
  11. Lönnroth EC, Shahnavaz H. Amalgam in dentistry. A survey of methods used at dental clinics in Norrbotten to decrease exposure to mercury vapour. Swed Dent J.  1995; 19(1-2): 55.
  12. Lönnroth EC, Shahnavaz H. Dental clinics–a burden to environment?  Swed Dent J.  1996; 20(5): 173.
  13. Martin MD, Naleway C, Chou HN. Factors contributing to mercury exposure in dentists. J Am Dent Assoc.  1995; 126(11): 1502-1511.
  14. Mumtaz R, Khan AA, Noor N, Humayun S. Amalgam use and waste management by Pakistani dentists: an environmental perspective. East Mediterr Health J.  2010; 16(3).
  15. Parsell DE, Karns L, Buchanan WT, Johnson RB. Mercury release during autoclave sterilization of amalgam. J Dent Educ.  1996; 60(5): 453-458.
  16. Roberts HW, Leonard D, Osborne J. Potential health and environmental issues of mercury-contaminated amalgamators. J Am Dent Assoc.  2001; 132(1): 58-64.
  17. Rowe NH, Sidhu KS, Chadzynski L, Babcock RF. Potential public health risks related to mercury/amalgam discharge from dental offices.  J Mich Dent Assoc.  1996; 78(2): 32.
  18. Votaw AL, Zey J. Vacuuming a mercury-contaminated dental office may be hazardous to your health. Dent Assist.  1991; 60(1): 27.
  19. Zahir F, Rizwi SJ, Haq SK, Khan RH. Low dose mercury toxicity and human health. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol.  2005; 20(2): 351-360.
  20. Trasande L, Landrigan P, and Schechter C.  Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain.   Environmental Health Perspectives.  2005; 113(5).
  21. Duplinsky TG, Cicchetti DV. The health status of dentists exposed to mercury from silver amalgam tooth restorations. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research. 2012; 1(1):1-15.
  22. Echeverria D, Heyer N, Martin MD, Naleway CA, Woods JS, Bittner AC. Behavioral effects of low-level exposure to Hg0 among dentists. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995; 17(2):161-8.
  23. Ngim CH, Foo SC, Boey KW, Jeyaratnem J. Chronic neurobehavioural effects of elemental mercury in dentists. Br J Ind Med. 1992; 49(11):782-790.
  24. Echeverria D, Aposhian HV, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Aposhian MM, Bittner AC, Mahurin RK, Cianciola M. Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam Hgo: new distinctions between recent exposure and body burden.  FASEBJ. 1998; 12(11):971-980.
  25. Shapiro IM, Cornblath DR, Sumner AJ, Sptiz LK, Uzzell B, Ship II, Bloch P.  Neurophysiological and neuropsychological function in mercury-exposed dentists.  Lancet. 1982; 319(8282):1447-1150.
  26. Hilt B, Svendsen K, Syversen T, Aas O, Qvenild T, Sletvold H, Melø I. Occurrence of cognitive symptoms in dental assistants with previous occupational exposure to metallic mercury.Neurotoxicology. 2009; 30(6):1202-1206.
  27. Gonzalez-Ramirez D, Maiorino RM, Zuniga-Charles M, Xu Z, Hurlbut KM, Junco-Munoz P, Aposhian MM, Dart RC, Diaz Gama JH, Echeverria D. Sodium 2, 3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test for mercury in humans: II. Urinary mercury, porphyrins and neurobehavioral changes of dental workers in Monterrey, Mexico. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 1995; 272(1):264-274.
  28. Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman D, Farin F, Li T, Garabedian CE.  The association between a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase, dental mercury exposure and neurobehavioral response in humans. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2006; 28(1):39-48.
  29. Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Echeverria D, Russo JE, Martin MD, Bernardo MF, Luis HS, Vaz L, Farin FM.  Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012; 34(5):513-21.
  30. Uzzell BP, Oler J. Chronic low-level mercury exposure and neuropsychological functioning. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1986; 8(5):581-593.
  31. Health and Environment Alliance.  Mercury and Dental Amalgams [fact sheet]. Brussels, Belgium: Health and Environment Alliance and Health Care without Harm; May 2007: 3.http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/HEA_009-07.pdf
  32. Verschoor MA, Herber RF, Zielhuis RL. (1988). Urinary mercury levels and early changes in kidney function in dentists and dental assistants. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology. 1988; 16(3):148-152.
  33. Boyd, N.D.;Benediktsson, H.;Vimy, M.J.; Hooper, D.E.;Lorscheider, F.L.  Mercury from dental “silver” tooth fillings impairs sheep kidney function Am J Physiol. 1991 Oct;261(4 Pt 2):R1010-4.
  34. Al-Saleh I, et al. Effect of mercury (Hg) dental amalgam fillings on renal and oxidative stress biomarkers in children. Sci Total Environ. 2012 Jun 7;431C:188-196.
  35. Geier DA, et al., A significant dose-dependent relationship between mercury exposure from dental amalgams and kidney integrity biomarkers: a further assessment of the Casa Pia children’s dental amalgam trial. Human and Experimental toxicology 1-7 (2012)
  36. Watson, Diane, and 18 other members of Congress.  Dear Acting Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein… [Congressional letter].  Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2009.  Copy of letter available upon request to john.donnelly@mail.house.gov.
  37. Watson, Diane (Congresswoman). Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act. Los Angeles, CA: November 5, 2001. Copy of Act available at http://amalgamillness.com/Text_DCAct.html.
  38. Rowland AS, Baird DD, Weinberg CR, Shore DL, Shy CM, Wilcox AJ. The effect of occupational exposure to mercury vapour on the fertility of female dental assistants. Occupat Environ Med. 1994; 51:28-34.
  39. Geier DA, Kern JK, Geier MR.  A prospective study of prenatal mercury exposure from dental amalgams and autism severity. Neurobiolgiae Experimentals Polish Neuroscience Society.  2009; 69(2): 189-197.
  40. London S. Amalgam fillings during pregnancy linked to infant cleft palate.  Elsevier Global Medical News.  July 21, 2010.  http://www.medconnect.com.sg/tabid/92/s4/Obstetrics-Gynecology/p21/Pregnancy-Lactation/ct1/c37751/Amalgam-Fillings-During-Pregnancy-Linked-to-Infant-Cleft-Palate/Default.aspx. Accessed February 18, 2013.
  41. Laks DR.  Environmental Mercury Exposure and the Risk of Autism.  White Paper for Safe Minds.  August 27, 2008. http://www.safeminds.org/about/documents/SM%20Env%20Mercury%20Exposure%20and%20Risk%20of%20Autism.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2013.
  42. Ask K, Akesson A, Berglund M, Vahter M. Inorganic mercury and methylmercury in placentas of Swedish women. Environ Health Perspect. 2002; 110(5):523-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240842/pdf/ehp0110-000523.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2013.
  43. Vahter M, Akesson A, Lind B, Bjors U, Schutz A, Berglund M.  Longitudinal study of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in blood and urine of pregnant and lactating women, as well as in umbilical cord blood. Environ Res. 2000; 84(2):186-94.
  44. Nourouzi E, Bahramifar N, Ghasempouri SM.  Effect of teeth amalgam on mercury levels in the colostrums human milk in Lenjan. Environ Monit Access.  2012; 184(1):375-380.
  45. Al-Saleh I, Al-Sedairi A. Mercury (Hg) burden in children: The impact of dental amalgam. Sci Total Environ. 2011; 409(16):3003-3015.
  46. Vimy MJ, Hooper DE, King WW, Lorscheider FL. Mercury from maternal “silver” tooth fillings in sheep and human breast milk. Biological Trace Element Research. 1997; 56(2): 143-152.
  47. Richardson GM, Wilson R, Allard D, Purtill C, Douma S, Gravière J. Mercury exposure and risks from dental amalgam in the US population, post-2000. Science of the Total Environment. 2011; 409(20): 4257-4268.
  48. Vimy MJ, Takahashi Y, Lorscheider FL.  Maternal-fetal distribution of mercury (203 Hg) released from dental amalgam fillings. American Physiology Society. 1990; 258(4): R939-945.
  49. Haley BE. Mercury toxicity: genetic susceptibility and synergistic effects. Medical Vertias.2005; 2(2): 535-542.
  50. Sikorski R, Juszkiewicz T, Paszkowski T, Szprengier-Juszkiewicz T. Women in dental surgeries: reproductive hazards in exposure to metallic mercury. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 1987; 59(6): 551-557.
  51. Oskarsson A, Schutz A, Schkerving S, Hallen IP, Ohlin B, Lagerkvist BJ. Total and inorganic mercury in breast milk in relation to fish consumption and amalgam in lactating women. Arch Environ Health. 1996; 51(3):234-51.
  52. 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;107(1):79–88.
  53. Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Echeverria D, Russo JE, Martin MD, Bernardo MF, Luis HS, Vaz L, Farin FM.  Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012; 34(5):513-21.
  54. Palkovicova L, Ursinyova M, Masanova V, Yu Z, Hertz-Picciotto I. Maternal amalgam dental fillings as the source of mercury exposure in developing fetus and newborn. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2008; 18(3):326–31.
  55. Lindow SW, Knight R, Batty J, Haswell SJ. Maternal and neonatal hair mercury concentrations: the effect of dental amalgam. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2003; 23(S1):S48-S49.
  56. Lutz E, Lind B, Herin P, Krakau I, Bui TH, Vahter M. Concentrations of mercury, cadmium and lead in brain and kidney of second trimester fetuses and infants. J Trace Elem Med Biol.1996; 10(2):61–7.
  57. Ask-Björnberg K, Vahter M, Petersson-Grawé K, Glynn A, Cnattingius S, Darnerud PO, et al. Methyl mercury and inorganic mercury in Swedish pregnant women and in cord blood: influence of fish consumption. Environ Health Perspect. 2003; 111(4): 637–41.
  58. da Costa SL, Malm O, Dorea JG. Breast-milk mercury concentrations and amalgam surface in mothers from Brasilia, Brasil. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2005; 106(2): 145–51.
  59. Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Echeverria D, Russo JE, Martin MD, Bernardo MF, Luis HS, Vaz L, Farin FM.  Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2012; 34(5):513-21.
  60. Watson GE, Evans K, Thurston SW, van Wijngaarden E, Wallace JM, McSorley EM, Bonham MP, Mulhern MS, McAfee AJ, Davidson PW, Shamlaye CF, Strain JJ, Love T, Zareba G, Myers GJ.  Prenatal exposure to dental amalgam in the Seychelles Child Development Nutrition Study: Associations with neurodevelopmental outcomes at 9 and 30 months. Neurotoxicology.  2012.
  61. Wasylko L, Matsui D, Dykxhoorn SM, Rieder MJ, Weinberg S. A review of common dental treatments during pregnancy: implications for patients and dental personnel. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998; 64(6):434-9.
  62. Gelbier S, Ingram J.  Possible fetotoxic effects of mercury vapor: a case report. Public Health.1989; 103(1):35-40.
  63. Rowland AS, Baird DD, Weinberg CR, Shore DL, Shy CM, Wilcox AJ. The effect of occupational exposure to mercury vapour on the fertility of female dental assistants. Occupat Environ Med. 1994; 51:28-34.
  64. Sikorski R, Juszkiewicz T, Paszkowski T, Szprengier-Juszkiewicz T. Women in dental surgeries: reproductive hazards in exposure to metallic mercury. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 1987; 59(6):551-557.
  65. McMahon C, Pergament E. Illinois Teratogen Information Service. Mercury exposure and Pregnancy. 2001;  8(3).
  66. Moienafshari R, Bar-Oz B, Koren G.  Occupational exposure to mercury.  What level is safe?  Canadian Family Physician. 1999; 46: 43-45.
  67. Amalgam-Mercury Fact Sheet. IAOMT Web site: http://iaomt.guiadmin.com/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fact-Sheet.pdf.  Published August 5, 2011.https://iaomt.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fact-Sheet.pdf
  68. Miller EG, Perry WL, Wagner MJ. Prevalence of mercury hypersensitivity in dental students. J Dent Res. 1985; 64: Special Issue, p. 338, Abstract #1472.
  69. White RR, Brandt RL. Development of mercury hypersensitivity among dental students. JADA. 1976; 92(6):1204-7.
  70. Finne KAJ, Göransson K, Winckler L. Oral lichen planus and contact allergy to mercury.International Journal of Oral Surgery.  1982; 11(4):236-239.
  71. Lee JY, Yoo JM, Cho BK, Kim HO. Contact dermatitis in Korean dental technicians. Contact Dermatitis. 2001; 45(1):13-16.
  72. Pérez-Gómez B, Aragonés N, Gustavsson P, Plato N, López-Abente G, Pollán, M. Cutaneous melanoma in Swedish women: occupational risks by anatomic site. Am J Ind Med. 2005; 48(4):270-281.
  73. Kanerva L, Lahtinen A, Toikkanen J, Forss H, Estlander T, Susitaival P, Jolanki R. Increase in occupational skin diseases of dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis. 1999; 40(2):104-108.
  74. White RR, Brandt RL. Development of mercury hypersensitivity among dental students.JADA. 1976; 92(6):1204-7.
  75. Rojas M, Seijas D, Agreda O, Rodríguez M. Biological monitoring of mercury exposure in individuals referred to a toxicological center in Venezuela. Sci Total Environ. 2006; 354(2):278-285.
  76. de Oliveira MT, Pereira JR, Ghizoni JS, Bittencourt ST, Molina GO. Effects from exposure to dental amalgam on systemic mercury levels in patients and dental school students. Photomed Laser Surg.  2010; 28(S2):S-111.
  77. Karahalil B, Rahravi H, Ertas N. Examination of urinary mercury levels in dentists in Turkey.Hum Exp Toxicol. 2005; 24(8):383-388.
  78. Martin MD, Naleway C, Chou HN. Factors contributing to mercury exposure in dentists. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995; 126(11):1502-1511.
  79. Fabrizio E, Vanacore N, Valente M, Rubino A, Meco G. High prevalence of extrapyramidal signs and symptoms in a group of Italian dental technicians. BMC Neurol. 2007; 7(1):24.
  80. Richardson GM.  Inhalation of mercury-contaminated particulate matter by dentists: an overlooked occupational risk. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2003; 9(6):1519-1531.
  81. Zahir F, Rizwi SJ, Haq SK, Khan RH. Low dose mercury toxicity and human health. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005; 20(2):351-360.
  82. Richardson GM, Brecher RW, Scobie H, Hamblen J, Samuelian J, Smith C. Mercury vapour (Hg(0)): Continuing toxicological uncertainties, and establishing a Canadian reference exposure level. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009; 53(1):32-38.
  83. Shapiro IM, Cornblath DR, Sumner AJ, Sptiz LK, Uzzell B, Ship II, Bloch P.  Neurophysiological and neuropsychological function in mercury-exposed dentists.  Lancet. 1982; 319(8282):1447-1150.
  84. Windham, B.  Research: occupational mercury poisoning in dentistry. The Natural Recovery Plan.  http://www.thenaturalrecoveryplan.com/articles/research-mercury-dentistry.html
  85. Lönnroth EC, Shahnavaz H. Amalgam in dentistry. A survey of methods used at dental clinics in Norrbotten to decrease exposure to mercury vapour. Swed Dent J. 1995; 19(1-2):55.
  86. Lönnroth EC, Shahnavaz H. Dental clinics–a burden to environment?  Swed Dent J. 1996; 20(5):173.
  87. Buchwald H.  Exposure of dental workers to mercury. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1972; 33(7):492-502.
  88. Parsell DE, Karns L, Buchanan WT, Johnson RB. Mercury release during autoclave sterilization of amalgam. J Dent Educ. 1996; 60(5):453-458.
  89. Stonehouse CA, Newman AP. Mercury vapour release from a dental aspirator. Br Dent J.2001; 190(10):558-60.
  90. Nimmo A, Werley MS, Martin JS, Tansy MF. Particulate inhalation during the removal of amalgam restorations. J Prosth Dent. 1990; 63(2):228-33.
  91. Roberts HW, Leonard D, Osborne J. Potential health and environmental issues of mercury-contaminated amalgamators. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132(1): 58-64.
  92. Warwick R, O Connor A, Lamey B. Sample size = 25 for each mercury vapor exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013; 8(1):27.
  93. Richardson GM.  Inhalation of mercury-contaminated particulate matter by dentists: an overlooked occupational risk. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 2003; 9(6):1519-1531.
2017-01-12T14:50:33+00:00