CDC Data Show Toxic Mercury Exposures from Dental Mercury Amalgam Fillings Pose Risk to Majority of Americans.

San Diego, CA, Oct, 6th 2022/ — This is an alert to the public provided by the The Preventive Dental Health Association (PDHA) that recently published data from the CDC’s NHANES database indicates one amalgam dental filling, which contains 50% mercury, exposes an individual to daily levels of mercury in excess of safety limits.

A dental amalgam filling, made of roughly 50% elemental mercury.

A team of researchers published a study, “Dental amalgam fillings and mercury vapor safety limits in American adults“, using data from the CDC’s 2015–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES]. The study examined data representative of over 158 million Americans and included important risk factors such as sex, age, race, and poverty level. The researchers found more than 85 million adults are exposed to mercury from amalgam fillings at levels greater than the minimum risk level set by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Mark Geier states: “Clearly the risk of mercury exposure from amalgam fillings and its negative impact on human health far outweigh any benefit that the dental profession might claim.”

Dr. Teresa Scott, President of the International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine states, “The results of the study show it is past time to end the use of amalgam fillings”.

The alarming findings revealed the more amalgam surfaces one has, the greater amounts of mercury exposure. The study also showed Asian and Black males are more likely to exceed the safety standards compared to other groups. Among women, Blacks and Hispanics are the most affected groups.

In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognized that mercury from amalgam fillings ‘off-gasses’ into the mouth and “certain groups may be at greater risk for potential harmful health effects of mercury vapor… The agency is recommending certain high-risk groups avoid getting dental amalgam whenever possible and appropriate”.

 PDHA’s Dr. David Kennedy explains: “Every amalgam filling placed exposes patients to mercury, damaging their health as time goes on. Additionally, amalgam fillings can crack teeth, eventually needing to be removed, this time exposing dental patients and staff to mercury over OSHA’s safety limits. Thus it’s of the utmost importance that dentists protect their patients and staff by being certified in the Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART), created by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.”

Like this article?

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Linkdin
Share on Pinterest

They Were Children First: The Unanswered Questions of the Casa Pia Mercury Trial

It is easy, after twenty years, to turn Casa Pia into an argument about regulatory classification. That would be a mistake. The people at the center of this story were children. They did not design the study. They did not write the protocol. They did not decide which material would be placed in their teeth. They did not select the investigators. They did not determine which outcomes would be measured. They did not decide which data would be available for analysis. And they did not write the regulatory rules that eventually cited the scientific record generated by their participation. Many were already vulnerable before the study began.

Learn More »

Is the Alzheimer’s Epidemic a Hidden Case of Mercury Poisoning?

In the late 1700s and 1800s, the medical literature of the Western world was remarkably silent regarding the devastating cognitive decline we now call Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). The pathologists of the Victorian era were not mere hobbyists; they were meticulous observers who cataloged rare conditions with obsessive detail.

Learn More »

How a Study Became a Regulatory Benchmark – and Why the Ground Has Shifted

In 2006, FDA staff prepared a White Paper concerning potential adverse health risks associated with mercury in dental amalgam. The agency then brought the issue before a joint advisory panel in September 2006. The panel did not simply endorse the FDA staff’s conclusion. According to the contemporaneous record, the panel voted 13–7 against accepting the FDA staff’s safety conclusion.

Learn More »