| Literature DB >> 17938746 |
James S Woods1, Michael D Martin, Brian G Leroux, Timothy A DeRouen, Jorge G Leitão, Mario F Bernardo, Henrique S Luis, P Lynne Simmonds, John V Kushleika, Ying Huang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary mercury concentrations are widely used as a measure of mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings. No studies have evaluated the relationship of these measures in a longitudinal context in children.Entities:
Keywords: amalgam; children; dental; mercury; urine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17938746 PMCID: PMC2022658 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Figure 1Histograms of baseline urinary mercury concentrations in amalgam (A) and composite (B) treated groups. Heights of the bars represent the numbers of subjects with values within the indicated range. The distributions of baseline urinary mercury levels were similar in the two treatment groups.
Demographics and baseline urinary mercury concentrations of the study participants by assigned treatment group.
| Variable | Amalgam group ( | Composite group ( |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 116 (46) | 112 (44) |
| Male | 137 (54) | 142 (56) |
| Race | ||
| White | 178 (70) | 181 (71) |
| Black | 75 (30) | 68 (27) |
| Asian | 0 (0) | 5 (2) |
| Baseline age (years) | 10.1 ± 1.0 (8.0–12.4) | 10.0 ± 0.9 (8.2–12.0) |
| Baseline urinary mercury concentration (μg/L) | 1.5 ± 1.2 (0.1–7.7) | 1.4 ± 1.1 (0.0–8.6) |
Values are no. (%) or mean ± SD (range).
Categorization of the amount of amalgam treatment at baseline (within the first year after the initial visit) and during the follow-up period separately for male and female participants.
| Baseline amalgam treatment (no. of surfaces) | Follow-up amalgam treatment (no. of surfaces) | Male [no. (%)] | Female [no. (%)] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–4 | 0 | 13 (9.5) | 11 (9.5) |
| 1–9 | 10 (7.2) | 3 (2.6) | |
| > 9 | 4 (2.9) | 4 (3.4) | |
| 5–9 | 0 | 11 (8.0) | 14 (12.1) |
| 1–9 | 23 (16.8) | 17 (14.7) | |
| > 9 | 13 (9.5) | 10 (8.6) | |
| > 9 | 0 | 18 (13.1) | 13 (11.2) |
| 1–9 | 30 (21.9) | 28 (24.1) | |
| > 9 | 15 (10.9) | 16 (13.8) | |
| Total | — | 137 (100) | 116 (100) |
The amount of treatment during both time periods was similar for males and females.
Figure 2Mean urinary mercury concentrations, unadjusted (A) and creatinine-adjusted (B), for the amalgam group and composite group. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for the group means. Group differences were highly statistically significant (p < 0.001) for both measures at follow-up years 2 through 6. The group differences at year 7 were not significant for unadjusted mercury (p = 0.07) but significant for adjusted mercury (p = 0.007).
Figure 3Mean urinary mercury concentrations for the amalgam group and composite group separately for male (A) and female (B) participants. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for the group means. Differences between males and females in the amalgam group were statistically significant (p < 0.05) at all follow-up years except follow-up year 3. The sex comparisons were not altered significantly by adjustment for creatinine (results not shown).
Figure 4The increase in urinary mercury concentration is influenced by both the amount and timing of amalgam treatment. Children in the amalgam group were categorized according to the number of amalgam surfaces placed at baseline—(A) 0–4; (B) 5–9; (C) > 9—and the number of additional amalgam surfaces placed in subsequent years. The values plotted are the differences between mean urinary mercury in a particular subgroup of amalgam-treated children compared with mean urinary mercury concentration in the composite group at each year.