 |
|
Neurobehavioral Effects of Dental Amalgam in Children
A Randomized Clinical Trial
Timothy A. DeRouen, PhD;
Michael D. Martin, DMD, PhD;
Brian G. Leroux, PhD;
Brenda D. Townes, PhD;
James S. Woods, PhD, MPH;
Jorge Leitão, MD, MS;
Alexandre Castro-Caldas, MD, PhD;
Henrique Luis, MS;
Mario Bernardo, DMD, PhD;
Gail Rosenbaum, MS;
Isabel P. Martins, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2006;295:1784-1792.
Context Dental (silver) amalgam is a widely used restorative material containing 50% elemental mercury that emits small amounts of mercury vapor. No randomized clinical trials have determined whether there are significant health risks associated with this low-level mercury exposure.
Objective To assess the safety of dental amalgam restorations in children.
Design A randomized clinical trial in which children requiring dental restorative treatment were randomized to either amalgam for posterior restorations or resin composite instead of amalgam. Enrollment commenced February 1997, with annual follow-up for 7 years concluding in July 2005.
Setting and Participants A total of 507 children in Lisbon, Portugal, aged 8 to 10 years with at least 1 carious lesion on a permanent tooth, no previous exposure to amalgam, urinary mercury level <10 µg/L, blood lead level <15 µg/dL, Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence IQ  67, and with no interfering health conditions.
Intervention Routine, standard-of-care dental treatment, with one group receiving amalgam restorations for posterior lesions (n = 253) and the other group receiving resin composite restorations instead of amalgam (n = 254).
Main Outcome Measures Neurobehavioral assessments of memory, attention/concentration, and motor/visuomotor domains, as well as nerve conduction velocities.
Results During the 7-year trial period, children had a mean of 18.7 tooth surfaces (median, 16) restored in the amalgam group and 21.3 (median, 18) restored in the composite group. Baseline mean creatinine-adjusted urinary mercury levels were 1.8 µg/g in the amalgam group and 1.9 µg/g in the composite group, but during follow-up were 1.0 to 1.5 µg/g higher in the amalgam group than in the composite group (P<.001). There were no statistically significant differences in measures of memory, attention, visuomotor function, or nerve conduction velocities (average z scores were very similar, near zero) for the amalgam and composite groups over all 7 years of follow-up, with no statistically significant differences observed at any time point (P values from .29 to .91). Starting at 5 years after initial treatment, the need for additional restorative treatment was approximately 50% higher in the composite group.
Conclusions In this study, children who received dental restorative treatment with amalgam did not, on average, have statistically significant differences in neurobehavioral assessments or in nerve conduction velocity when compared with children who received resin composite materials without amalgam. These findings, combined with the trend of higher treatment need later among those receiving composite, suggest that amalgam should remain a viable dental restorative option for children.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00066118
Author Affiliations: Departments of Dental Public Health Sciences (Drs DeRouen and Leroux), Biostatistics (Drs DeRouen and Leroux), Oral Medicine (Dr Martin), Epidemiology (Dr Martin), Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (Dr Townes and Ms Rosenbaum), and Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences (Dr Woods), University of Washington, Seattle; Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Seattle, Wash (Dr Woods); Faculty of Dental Medicine (Drs Bernardo and Leitão and Mr Luis) and Faculty of Medicine (Drs Castro-Caldas and Martins), Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; and Institute of Health Sciences, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, Lisbon, Portugal (Dr Castro-Caldas).
RELATED ARTICLES
Neuropsychological and Renal Effects of Dental Amalgam in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial
David C. Bellinger, Felicia Trachtenberg, Lars Barregard, Mary Tavares, Elsa Cernichiari, David Daniel, and Sonja McKinlay
JAMA. 2006;295(15):1775-1783.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mercury in Dental Amalgam—A Neurotoxic Risk?
Herbert L. Needleman
JAMA. 2006;295(15):1835-1836.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
A novel transposon, Tn6009, composed of a Tn916 element linked with a Staphylococcus aureus mer operon
Soge et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;0:dkn255v1-7.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Dental Amalgam and Psychosocial Status: The New England Children's Amalgam Trial
Bellinger et al.
J. Dent. Res. 2008;87:470-474.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Dental Amalgam and Antibiotic- and/or Mercury-resistant Bacteria
Roberts et al.
J. Dent. Res. 2008;87:475-479.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reply
David et al.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:1777-1778.
FULL TEXT
Treatment of Health Complaints Attributed to Amalgam
Melchart et al.
J. Dent. Res. 2008;87:349-353.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Neurological outcomes in children with and without amalgam-related mercury exposure: Seven years of longitudinal observations in a randomized trial
Lauterbach et al.
Journal of the American Dental Association 2008;139:138-145.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Dose-Effect Analysis of Children's Exposure to Dental Amalgam and Neuropsychological Function: The New England Children's Amalgam Trial
Bellinger et al.
Journal of the American Dental Association 2007;138:1210-1216.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: Findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial
Soncini et al.
Journal of the American Dental Association 2007;138:763-772.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial
Bernardo et al.
Journal of the American Dental Association 2007;138:775-783.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Neurobehavioral and Renal Effects of Dental Amalgam in Children
JWatch Neurology 2006;2006:9-9.
FULL TEXT
Risks of dental amalgam in children.
Pigatto and Meroni
JAMA 2006;296:1461-1461.
FULL TEXT
Neurotoxicity of mercury in dental amalgam.
Fung et al.
JAMA 2006;296:1462-1462.
FULL TEXT
Neurotoxicity of Mercury in Dental Amalgam--Reply
Needleman
JAMA 2006;296:1462-1463.
FULL TEXT
CARPHOLOGY by Rajendra
PN 2006;6:268-268.
FULL TEXT
No Neurobehavioral Effect of Mercury in Dental Amalgam
Schiff
AAP Grand Rounds 2006;16:80-81.
FULL TEXT
No Harm Found from Mercury in Dental Amalgam
JWatch Pediatrics 2006;2006:5-5.
FULL TEXT
Mercury in dental amalgam--a neurotoxic risk?
Needleman
JAMA 2006;295:1835-1836.
FULL TEXT
|
