4.4 Article

Neurological outcomes in children with and without amalgam-related mercury exposure

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 139, Issue 2, Pages 138-145

Publisher

AMER DENTAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0128

Keywords

mercury; amalgam; neurological; children

Funding

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [U01 DE 11894] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [P42 ES 04696, P30 ES 07033] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Although large-scale; randomized trials involving children have been completed and their results demonstrate an absence of neurobehavioral effects from clinical exposure to mercury amalgam, neurological findings from such studies have not been reported. Methods. The authors conducted a randomized, prospective trial examining the safety of dental amalgam in which 507 children aged 8 through 12 years were assigned to treatment: with either amalgam or resin-based composite. During seven years of follow-up, the authors performed annual clinical neurological examinations; including an evaluation of neurological hard,signs (NHSs), presence of tremor and neurological soft signs (NSSs). Results. The authors found no significant differences between treatment groups in any of the neurological measures. Groups did not differ with respect to the presence or absence of NHSs or tremor, nor the presence or absence or severity of NSSs at any point. As expected, NSS severity scores diminished with increasing age. Conclusions. Even at the levels of amalgam exposure in this study (a mean of 7.7-10.7 amalgam surfaces per subject across the seven years of follow-up), the authors conclude that exposure to mercury from dental amalgam does not adversely affect neurological status. Clinical Implications. The current evidence is that potential neurobehavioral or neurological effects from dental amalgam mercury exposure in children are inconsequential.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available