BACKGROUND:Dental amalgam is a widely used restorative material containing 50 percent elemental mercury that emits mercury vapor. No randomized clinical trials have determined whether there are adverse immunological effects associated with this low-level mercury exposure in children. The objective of this study was to evaluate a subpopulation of the participants in the New England Children's Amalgam Trial for in vitro manifestations of immunotoxic effects of dental amalgam. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized clinical trial in which children requiring dental restorative treatment were randomly assigned to receive either amalgam for posterior restorations or resin-based composite restorations. They assessed 66 children, aged 6 to 10 years, for total white blood cell counts, specific lymphocyte (T-cell and B-cell) counts and lymphocyte, neutrophil and monocyte responsiveness across a five-year period. Because of the small number of participants, the authors acknowledge that the study is exploratory in nature and has limited statistical power. RESULTS: The mean number of tooth surfaces restored during the five-year period was 7.8 for the amalgam group and 10.1 for the composite group. In the amalgam group, there was a slight, but not statistically significant, decline in responsiveness of T cells and monocytes at five to seven days after treatment; the authors consistently observed no differences at six, 12 or 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study confirm that treatment of children with amalgam restorations leads to increased, albeit low-level, exposure to mercury. In this exploratory analysis of immune function, amalgam exposure did not cause overt immune deficits, although small transient effects were observed five to seven days after restoration placement. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that immunotoxic effects of amalgam restorations are minimal and transient in children and most likely do not need to be of concern to practitioners considering the use of this restorative dental material.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dental amalgam is a widely used restorative material containing 50 percent elemental mercury that emits mercury vapor. No randomized clinical trials have determined whether there are adverse immunological effects associated with this low-level mercury exposure in children. The objective of this study was to evaluate a subpopulation of the participants in the New England Children's Amalgam Trial for in vitro manifestations of immunotoxic effects of dental amalgam. METHODS: The authors conducted a randomized clinical trial in which children requiring dental restorative treatment were randomly assigned to receive either amalgam for posterior restorations or resin-based composite restorations. They assessed 66 children, aged 6 to 10 years, for total white blood cell counts, specific lymphocyte (T-cell and B-cell) counts and lymphocyte, neutrophil and monocyte responsiveness across a five-year period. Because of the small number of participants, the authors acknowledge that the study is exploratory in nature and has limited statistical power. RESULTS: The mean number of tooth surfaces restored during the five-year period was 7.8 for the amalgam group and 10.1 for the composite group. In the amalgam group, there was a slight, but not statistically significant, decline in responsiveness of T cells and monocytes at five to seven days after treatment; the authors consistently observed no differences at six, 12 or 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study confirm that treatment of children with amalgam restorations leads to increased, albeit low-level, exposure to mercury. In this exploratory analysis of immune function, amalgam exposure did not cause overt immune deficits, although small transient effects were observed five to seven days after restoration placement. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that immunotoxic effects of amalgam restorations are minimal and transient in children and most likely do not need to be of concern to practitioners considering the use of this restorative dental material.
Authors: Albert Kingman; James W Albers; Joseph C Arezzo; David H Garabrant; Joel E Michalek Journal: Neurotoxicology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Bruce J Shenker; Dave Besack; Terry McKay; Lisa Pankoski; Ali Zekavat; Donald R Demuth Journal: J Immunol Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: B J Shenker; P Berthold; S Decker; J Mayro; C Rooney; L Vitale; I M Shapiro Journal: Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol Date: 1992 Impact factor: 2.730
Authors: Nancy Nairi Maserejian; Felicia L Trachtenberg; Susan F Assmann; Lars Barregard Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Andres Cardenas; Devin C Koestler; E Andres Houseman; Brian P Jackson; Molly L Kile; Margaret R Karagas; Carmen J Marsit Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Nancy N Maserejian; Peter Shrader; Olivia A Brown; Felicia L Trachtenberg; Jennifer Soncini; Russ Hauser; Bruce J Shenker Journal: Int J Paediatr Dent Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Margaret R Karagas; Anna L Choi; Emily Oken; Milena Horvat; Rita Schoeny; Elizabeth Kamai; Whitney Cowell; Philippe Grandjean; Susan Korrick Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Helen V Worthington; Sara Khangura; Kelsey Seal; Monika Mierzwinski-Urban; Analia Veitz-Keenan; Philipp Sahrmann; Patrick Roger Schmidlin; Dell Davis; Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor; María Graciela Rasines Alcaraz Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-08-13