Particulate inhalation during the removal of amalgam restorations

Nimmo, Arthur; Werley, Michael S.; Martin, John S.; Tansy, Martin F.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(90)90110-x

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nimmo et al assessed particulate levels at the inhalation area of the dentist and the patient during amalgam removal under three conditions; no water or suction(control), water and suction, and water, suction and the use of a rubber dam. The researchers found that the use of water and suction significantly reduced the respirable particulate when compared to the control and that the addition of the rubber dam reduced the particulate further, however they concluded that even with suction, water and rubber dam, the dentist was still exposed to sufficient particulate to warrant the use of a face shield during amalgam removal [27]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mercury vapour exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal

Warwick¹,

O’Connor

Lamey³

2013

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAmalgam that is used for dental fillings contains approximately 50% elemental mercury. During dental student training, amalgam is often removed by drilling without the use of water spray and suction, which are protective measures in preventing mercury aerosol. In this study we measured mercury vapor levels in ambient air during amalgam removal as is typically performed in dental training.MethodsMercury vapor levels in ambient air were measured in a dental school laboratory during removal of amalgam fillings from artificial teeth set into a dental jaw simulator. Mercury vapor was measured under three conditions (25 measurements each): with the simultaneous use of water spray and suction, with the use of suction only, and with the use of neither suction nor water spray. These three conditions are all used during dental student training. Results were compared to Alberta occupational exposure limits for mercury vapor in order to assess potential occupational risk to students. Analysis of variance testing was used to compare data obtained under the three conditions.ResultsWhen water spray and suction were used, mercury vapor levels ranged from 4.0 to 19.0 μg/m3 (arithmetic mean = 8.0 μg/m3); when suction only was used, mercury vapor levels ranged from 14.0 to 999.0 (999.0 μg/m3 represents the high limit detection of the Jerome analyzer) (arithmetic mean = 141.0 μg/m3); when neither suction nor water was used, the vapor levels ranged from 34.0 to 796.0 μg/m3 (arithmetic mean = 214.0 μg/m3).ConclusionsThe Alberta Occupational Health and Safety threshold limit value for mercury vapor over an eight-hour time-weighted period is 25.0 μg/m3. The absolute ceiling for mercury vapor, not to be exceeded at any time, is 125.0 μg/m3. When both water spray and suction were used, mercury vapor levels were consistently below this threshold. When suction without water spray was used, mercury vapor levels exceeded the safety threshold 8% of the time. When neither water spray nor suction was used, 36% of the mercury vapor readings exceeded the absolute ceiling value. To maximize safety, dental schools should train students to remove amalgam only while using water spray and high volume suction. Alternatively, students should use appropriate occupational hygiene personal protective equipment during amalgam removals.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mercury vapour exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal

Warwick¹,

O’Connor

Lamey³

2013

Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study showed that it is feasible to measure potentially toxic trace elements, as shown by the values found for Al, Si, Zn, Zr, and Ba. With regard to Hg, which is not detectable by XRF, there is a single published report (Nimmo et al 1990) of measurements of Hg-containing particles produced by a simulation of amalgam filling restoration. Consequently, extensive measurements, using techniques similar to those reported here, would be useful to provide a more comprehensive determination of the risks to dental personnel from particles containing this toxic element.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Measurement of particle concentrations in a dental office

Sotiriou

Ferguson

Davey

et al. 2007

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Particles in a dental office can be generated by a number of instruments, such as air-turbine handpieces, low-speed handpieces, ultrasonic scalers, bicarbonate polishers, polishing cups, as well as drilling and air sprays inside the oral cavity. This study examined the generation of particles during dental drilling and measured particle size, mass, and trace elements. The air sampling techniques included both continuous and integrated methods. The following particle continuous measurements were taken every minute: (1) size-selective particle number concentration (Climet); (2) total particle number concentration (PTRAK), and; (3) particle mass concentration (DustTrak). Integrated particle samples were collected for about 5 h on each of five sampling days, using a PM(2.5) sampler (ChemComb) for elemental/organic carbon analysis, and a PM(10) sampler (Harvard Impactor) for mass and elemental analyses. There was strong evidence that these procedures result in particle concentrations above background. The dental procedures produced number concentrations of relatively small particles (<0.5 microm) that were much higher than concentrations produced for the relatively larger particles (>0.5 microm). Also, these dental procedures caused significant elevation above background of certain trace elements (measured by X-ray fluorescence) but did not cause any elevation of elemental carbon (measured by thermal optical reflectance). Dental drilling procedures aerosolize saliva and products of drilling, producing particles small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs. The potential health impacts of the exposure of dental personnel to such particles need to be evaluated. Increased ventilation and personal breathing protection could be used to minimize harmful effects.

show abstract

“…A rubber dam and an external suction were used to prevent the subject from swallowing the amalgam debris or inhaling any mercury vapor (Fig. ) . The amalgam filling was replaced with glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji IX, GC, Tokyo, Japan: SiO 2 , Al 2 O 3 , polyacrylic acid, and others).…”

Section: Clinical Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severe dermatitis might be caused by a cross‐reaction between nickel and palladium and dental amalgam resolved following removal of dental restorations

Particulate inhalation during the removal of amalgam restorations

Cited by 24 publications

References 19 publications

Mercury vapour exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal

Mercury vapour exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal

Measurement of particle concentrations in a dental office

Severe dermatitis might be caused by a cross‐reaction between nickel and palladium and dental amalgam resolved following removal of dental restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About