Abstract
Over the past decades, the use of common sources of electromagnetic fields such as Wi-Fi routers and mobile phones has been increased enormously all over the world. There is ongoing concern that exposure to electromagnetic fields can lead to adverse health effects. It has recently been shown that even low doses of mercury are capable of causing toxicity. Therefore, efforts are initiated to phase down or eliminate the use of mercury amalgam in dental restorations. Increased release of mercury from dental amalgam restorations after exposure to electromagnetic fields such as those generated by MRI and mobile phones has been reported by our team and other researchers. We have recently shown that some of the papers which reported no increased release of mercury after MRI, may have some methodological errors. Although it was previously believed that the amount of mercury released from dental amalgam cannot be hazardous, new findings indicate that mercury, even at low doses, may cause toxicity. Based on recent epidemiological findings, it can be claimed that the safety of mercury released from dental amalgam fillings is questionable. Therefore, as some individuals tend to be hypersensitive to the toxic effects of mercury, regulatory authorities should re-assess the safety of exposure to electromagnetic fields in individuals with amalgam restorations. On the other hand, we have reported that increased mercury release after exposure to electromagnetic fields may be risky for the pregnant women. It is worth mentioning that as a strong positive correlation between maternal and cord blood mercury levels has been found in some studies, our findings regarding the effect of exposure to electromagnetic fields on the release of mercury from dental amalgam fillings lead us to this conclusion that pregnant women with dental amalgam fillings should limit their exposure to electromagnetic fields to prevent toxic effects of mercury in their fetuses. Based on these findings, as infants and children are more vulnerable to mercury exposures, and as some individuals are routinely exposed to different sources of electromagnetic fields, we possibly need a paradigm shift in evaluating the health effects of amalgam fillings.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Shiraz, Iran.
Conflicts of interest statement: None declared.
References
1. Soussa E, Shalaby Y, Maria AM, Maria OM. Evaluation of oral tissue response and blood levels of mercury released from dental amalgam in rats. Arch Oral Biol 2013;58(8):981–8.10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.03.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Melchart D, Kohler W, Linde K, Zilker T, Kremers L, et al. Biomonitoring of mercury in patients with complaints attributed to dental amalgam, healthy amalgam bearers, and amalgam-free subjects: a diagnostic study. Clin Toxicol 2008;46(2):133–40.10.1080/15563650701324211Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Pizzichini M, Fonzi M, Gasparoni A, Fonzi L. Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam fillings. Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol 2000;42(2–3):88–93.Search in Google Scholar
4. Freden H, Hellden L, Milleding P. Mercury content in gingival tissues adjacent to amalgam fillings. Odontol Revy 1974;25(2):207–10.Search in Google Scholar
5. Zwicker JD, Dutton DJ, Emery JC. Longitudinal analysis of the association between removal of dental amalgam, urine mercury and 14 self-reported health symptoms. Environ Health 2014;13(1):95.10.1186/1476-069X-13-95Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
6. Mortazavi SMJ, Motamedifar M, Namdari G, Taheri M, Mortazavi AR, et al. Non-linear adaptive phenomena which decrease the risk of infection after pre-exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Dose Response 2013;12(2):233–45.Search in Google Scholar
7. Mortazavi SMJ, Taeb S, Dehghan N. Alterations of visual reaction time and short term memory in military radar personnel. Iran J Public Health 2013;42(4):428–35.Search in Google Scholar
8. Mortazavi SMJ, Rouintan MS, Taeb S, Dehghan N, Ghaffarpanah AA, et al. Human short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones decreases computer-assisted visual reaction time. Acta Neurol Belg 2012;112(2):171–5.10.1007/s13760-012-0044-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Mortazavi SMJ, Mosleh-Shirazi MA, Tavassoli AR, Taheri M, Mehdizadeh AR, et al. Increased radioresistance to lethal doses of gamma rays in mice and rats after exposure to microwave radiation emitted by a GSM mobile phone simulator. Dose Response 2013;11(2):281–92.10.2203/dose-response.12-010.MortazaviSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
10. Mortazavi S, Mosleh-Shirazi M, Tavassoli A, Taheri M, Bagheri Z, et al. A comparative study on the increased radioresistance to lethal doses of gamma rays after exposure to microwave radiation and oral intake of flaxseed oil. Iran J Radiat Res 2011;9(1):9–14.Search in Google Scholar
11. Mortazavi SMJ, Habib A, Ganj-Karimi AH, Samimi-Doost R, Pour-Abedi A, et al. Alterations in TSH and thyroid hormones following mobile phone use. Oman Med J 2009;24:274–8.Search in Google Scholar
12. Mortazavi SMJ, Daiee E, Yazdi A, Khiabani K, Kavousi A, et al. Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use. Pak J Biol Sci 2008;11(8):1142–6.10.3923/pjbs.2008.1142.1146Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Mortazavi SMJ, Ahmadi J, Shariati M. Prevalence of subjective poor health symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields among University students. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28(4):326–30.10.1002/bem.20305Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Mortazavi SMJ. Safety issue of mobile phone base stations. J Biomed Phys Eng 2013;3(1):1–2.Search in Google Scholar
15. Mortazavi SMJ. Adaptive responses after exposure to cosmic and natural terrestrial radiation. Indian J Radiat Res 2004;1(1):104–12.Search in Google Scholar
16. Mortazavi SMJ, Tavasoli AR, Ranjbari F, Moamaei P. Effects of laptop computers’ electromagnetic field on sperm quality. J Reprod Fertil 2010;11(4):251–9.Search in Google Scholar
17. Mortazavi SM, Vazife-Doost S, Yaghooti M, Mehdizadeh S, Rajaie-Far A. Occupational exposure of dentists to electromagnetic fields produced by magnetostrictive cavitrons alters the serum cortisol level. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2012;3(1):60–4.10.4103/0976-9668.95958Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Mortazavi SM, Daiee E, Yazdi A, Khiabani K, Kavousi A, et al. Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use. Pak J Biol Sci 2008;11(8):1142–6.10.3923/pjbs.2008.1142.1146Search in Google Scholar
19. Mortazavi SMJ, Neghab M, Anoosheh SMH, Bahaeddini N, Mortazavi G, et al. High-field MRI and Mercury release from dental amalgam fillings. Int J Occup Environ Med 2014;5(2): 101–5.Search in Google Scholar
20. Zhang Y, Li Z, Gao Y, Zhang C. Effects of fetal microwave radiation exposure on offspring behavior in mice. J Radiat Res 2015;56(2):261–8.10.1093/jrr/rru097Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
21. Tang J, Zhang Y, Yang L, Chen Q, Tan L, et al. Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic fields activates the mkp-1/ERK pathway and causes blood-brain barrier damage and cognitive impairment in rats. Brain Res 2015;1601:92–101.10.1016/j.brainres.2015.01.019Search in Google Scholar
22. Urbinello D, Joseph W, Verloock L, Martens L, Roosli M. Temporal trends of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in everyday environments across European cities. Environ Res 2014;134:134–42.10.1016/j.envres.2014.07.003Search in Google Scholar
23. Sadetzki S, Langer CE, Bruchim R, Kundi M, Merletti F, et al. The MOBI-Kids study protocol: challenges in assessing childhood and adolescent exposure to electromagnetic fields from wireless telecommunication technologies and possible association with brain tumor risk. Front Public Health 2014;2:124.10.3389/fpubh.2014.00124Search in Google Scholar
24. Fiocchi S, Parazzini M, Liorni I, Samaras T, Ravazzani P. Temperature increase in the fetus exposed to UHF RFID readers. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2014;61(7):2011–9.10.1109/TBME.2014.2312023Search in Google Scholar
25. Hardell L, Sage C. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmacother 2008;62(2):104–9.10.1016/j.biopha.2007.12.004Search in Google Scholar
26. Mortazavi SMJ, Mortazavi G. Effects of X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging on mercury release from dental amalgam into artificial saliva. Oral Radiol 2015:31(3):199–200.10.1007/s11282-014-0193-1Search in Google Scholar
27. Avoaka-Boni MC, Adou-Assoumou NM, Sinan AA, Abouattier-Mansilla EC. [Dental amalgams and mercury polemic in Abidjan]. Odontostomatol Trop 2007;30(120):7–14.Search in Google Scholar
28. Prochazkova J, Podzimek S, Tomka M, Kucerova H, Mihaljevic M, et al. Metal alloys in the oral cavity as a cause of oral discomfort in sensitive patients. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2006;27(Suppl 1):53–8.Search in Google Scholar
29. Yilmaz S, Misirlioglu M. The effect of 3 T MRI on microleakage of amalgam restorations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42(8):20130072.10.1259/dmfr.20130072Search in Google Scholar
30. Shahidi SH, Bronoosh P, Alavi AA, Zamiri B, Sadeghi AR, et al. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on microleakage of amalgam restorations: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38(7):470–4.10.1259/dmfr/30077669Search in Google Scholar
31. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 1997;25(6):459–73.10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00066-8Search in Google Scholar
32. Clarkson TW, Magos L, Myers GJ. The toxicology of mercury–current exposures and clinical manifestations. N Engl J Med 2003;349(18):1731–7.10.1056/NEJMra022471Search in Google Scholar PubMed
33. Taut C. Dental amalgam: is this the end? J Conserv Dent 2013;59(6):311–7.Search in Google Scholar
34. Ucar Y, Brantley WA. Biocompatibility of dental amalgams. Int J Dent 2011;2011:981595.10.1155/2011/981595Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
35. Mutter J. Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission. J Occup Med Toxicol 2011;6(1):2.10.1186/1745-6673-6-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
36. 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):326–31.10.1038/sj.jes.7500606Search in Google Scholar PubMed
37. Luglie PF, Campus G, Chessa G, Spano G, Capobianco G, et al. Effect of amalgam fillings on the mercury concentration in human amniotic fluid. Arch Gynecol obstet 2005;271(2): 138–42.10.1007/s00404-003-0578-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed
38. Bjornberg KA, Vahter M, Petersson-Grawe K, Glynn A, Cnattingius S, et al. Methyl mercury and inorganic mercury in Swedish pregnant women and in cord blood: influence of fish consumption. Environ Health Persp 2003;111(4):637–41.Search in Google Scholar
39. Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R, Roider G. Mercury burden of human fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 1994;153(8):607–10.10.1007/BF02190671Search in Google Scholar PubMed
40. Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol 2003;22(4):277–85.10.1080/10915810305120Search in Google Scholar PubMed
41. Homme KG, Kern JK, Haley BE, Geier DA, King PG, et al. New science challenges old notion that mercury dental amalgam is safe. Biometals 2014;27(1):19–24.10.1007/s10534-013-9700-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
42. Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link – Part I. Pathophysiology 2013;20(3):191–209.10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed
43. Herbert MR, Sage C. Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link part II. Pathophysiology 2013;20(3):211–34.10.1016/j.pathophys.2013.08.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
44. Geier DA, Kern JK, Geier MR. A prospective study of prenatal mercury exposure from maternal dental amalgams and autism severity. Acta Neurobiol Exp 2009;69(2):189–97.Search in Google Scholar
45. Mutter J, Naumann J, Schneider R, Walach H, Haley B. Mercury and autism: accelerating evidence? Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2005;26(5):439–46.Search in Google Scholar
46. Obrenovich ME, Shola D, Schroedel K, Agrahari A, Lonsdale D. The role of trace elements, thiamin (e) and transketolase in autism and autistic spectrum disorder. Front Biosci 2015;7:229–41.10.2741/730Search in Google Scholar PubMed
47. Mortazavi G, Haghani M, Rastegarian N, Zarei S, Mortazavi S. Increased release of mercury from dental amalgam fillings due to maternal exposure to electromagnetic fields as a possible mechanism for the high rates of autism in the offspring: introducing a hypothesis. J Biomed Phys Eng 2015, in press.Search in Google Scholar
48. Chen Z, Myers R, Wei T, Bind E, Kassim P, et al. Placental transfer and concentrations of cadmium, mercury, lead, and selenium in mothers, newborns, and young children. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2014;24(5):537–44.10.1038/jes.2014.26Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
49. Kursun S, Öztas B, Atas H, Tastekin M. Effects of X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging on mercury release from dental amalgam into artificial saliva. Oral Radiol 2014;30(2):142–6.10.1007/s11282-013-0154-0Search in Google Scholar
©2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
