Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 271, Issue 2, pp 138–142 | Cite as

Effect of amalgam fillings on the mercury concentration in human amniotic fluid

  • Pier Franca Luglie
  • Guglielmo Campus
  • Giannina Chessa
  • Giovanni Spano
  • Giampiero Capobianco
  • Giovanni Maria Fadda
  • Salvatore Dessole
Original Article



Methyl mercury (MeHg) and metallic Hg are well known as neurotoxic agents. Dental amalgam contributes significantly to elemental Hg vapour exposure in the general population. There is little information about Hg concentration in human amniotic fluid (AF) of pregnant women and its potential toxic effect on the fetuses.


Primary to assess the relationship between the presence of detectable mercury (Hg) concentration in human AF, number and surface areas of amalgam fillings of pregnant women; secondary to analyse their obstetric history and perinatal complications.


Seventy-two pregnant women took part in this prospective study. One dentist recorded the dental status, presence, number and surface areas of amalgam fillings. Total Hg concentration in AF was determined in digested samples using automatic cold vapour atomic absorption equipment. The detection limit of Hg in AF, determined from blank readings, was 0.08 ng/ml. To estimate the dependence of the explanatory variables (such as number and surface areas of amalgam fillings, fish consumption, presence of liver or neurological diseases and smoking habits) on mercury concentration several linear regression models were built up. Stepwise logistic regression procedures were running on total sample and on patients with at least one amalgam filling (Positive Filling group = PF). Principal component analysis (PCA) provided two factors, which explained for more the 60% of the variance among the variables.


The overall mean Hg concentration in AF among all patients was 0.37±0.49 ng/ml. Nineteen (26.4%) women had a Hg concentration <0.08 ng/ml (Hg negative group). In 53 (73.6%) patients, with a concentration ≥0.08 ng/ml (Hg positive group), the mean value of Hg was 0.49±0.52 ng/ml. The average number of amalgam fillings was 2.26 ± 3.19 in the Hg negative group and 5.32±3.03 in the Hg positive group (ANOVA one-way p=0.04). A dependence of mercury concentration on number of amalgam fillings (p=0.03), surface area of the amalgam fillings (p=0.04) and fish consumption (p=0.04) was observed but not at a significant level. In stepwise logistic procedure the number of amalgam fillings gave a contribution to the model (p=0.04), although null value was included in the confidence intervals. We observed no statistically significant differences (χ2 test) among the patients with a Hg concentration <0.08 ng/ml (n=19) and those with a concentration ≥0.08 (n=53) with regard to obstetric history and perinatal complications.


Number and surface areas of amalgam fillings influenced positively Hg concentration in AF but not at a significant level. Moreover Hg levels detected in AF were low and no adverse outcomes were observed through pregnancies and in the newborns.


Pregnant women Amalgam fillings Mercury concentration Human amniotic fluid Perinatal complications 


  1. 1.
    Berglund A (1990) Estimation by a 24-hour study of the daily dose of intra-oral mercury vapor inhaled after release from dental amalgam. J Dent Res 69:1646–16451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berglund A, Molin M (1996) Mercury vapor release from dental amalgam in patients with symptoms allegedly caused by amalgam fillings. Eur J Oral Sci 104:56–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlin M (1986) Mercury. In: Friberg L, Nordberg GF, Vouk VB (eds) Handbook on the toxicology of metals, 2nd edn, vol 2: specific metals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 387–445Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratel J, Haraldson T, Meding B, Yontchev E, Ohman SC, Ottosson JO (1997) Potential side effects of dental amalgam restorations. An oral and medical investigation. Eur J Oral Sci 105:234–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarkson TW, Friberg L, Hursh JB, Nylander M (1988) The prediction of intake of mercury vapor from amalgams. In: Clarkson TW, Friberg L, Nordberg GF and Sager PR (eds) Biological monitoring of toxic metals. Plenum, New York, pp 247–264Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drasch G, Schirpp I, Hofl H, Reinke R, Roider G (1994) Mercury burden of human fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 153:607–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekstrand J, Bjorkman L, Edlund C, Sandborgh-Englund G (1998) Toxicological aspects on the release and systemic uptake of mercury from dental amalgam. Eur J Oral Sci 106:678–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganss C, Gottwald B, Traenckner I et al (2000) Relation between mercury concentrations in saliva, blood, and urine in subjects with amalgam restorations. Clin Oral Investig 4:206–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goering PL, Galloway WD, Clarkson TW, Lorscheider FL, Berlin M, Rowland AS (1992) Toxicity assessment of mercury vapor from dental amalgams. Fund Appl Toxicol 19:319–329Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo T, Baasner J (1993) Determination of mercury in urine by flow-injection cold vapor atomic adsorption spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 278:189–196Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klemann D, Weinhold J, Strubelt O, Pentz R, Jungblut JR, Klink F (1990) Effects of amalgam fillings on the mercury concentrations in amniotic fluid and breast milk. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 45:142–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lothigius E, Smedberg JI, Angmar-Mansson B, Nilner K (1989) Relationship between oral symptoms, salivary function, smoking habits and general health in patients with complaints related to dental restorative materials. Swed Dent J 13:245–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luglie PF, Frulio A, Campus G, Chessa G, Fadda G, Dessole S (2000) Mercury determination in human amniotic fluid. Minerva Stomatol 49:155–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lutz E, Lend B, Herin P, Krakau J, Bui T, Vahter M (1996) Concentrations of mercury, cadmium and lead in brain and kidney of second trimester fetuses and infants. J Trace Elem Med Biol 10:61–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nylander M, Friberg L, Lind B (1987) Mercury concentrations in the human brain and kidneys in relation to exposure from dental amalgam fillings. Swed Dent J 11:179–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osborne JW, Albino JE (1999) Psychological and medical effects of mercury intake from dental amalgam. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 12:151–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramirez GB, Cruz MC, Pagulayan O, Ostrea E, Dalisay C (2000) The tagum study I: analysis and clinical correlates of mercury in maternal and cord blood, breast milk, meconium and infants’ air. Pediatrics 106:774–781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steuerwald U, Weihe P, Jorgensen PJ et al (2000) Maternal seafood diet, methylmercury exposure, and neonatal neurologic function. J Pediatr 136:599–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stromberg R, Langworth S, Soderman E (1999) Mercury inductions in persons with subjective symptoms alleged to dental amalgam fillings. Eur J Oral Sci 107:208–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suzuki T, Takemoto T, Shishido S, Kani K (1977) Mercury in human fluid. Scand J Work Environ Health 3:32–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takacs S, Tatar A, Barkai L (1992) Trace elements in the human blood, cerebrospinal and amniotic fluid. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 193:329–341PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Takahashi Y, Tsuruta S, Arimoto M, Tanaka H, Yoshida M (2003) Placental transfer of mercury in pregnant rats which received dental amalgam restorations. Toxicology 185:23–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vahter M, Akesson A, Lind B, Bjors U, Schutz A, Berglund M (2000) Longitudinal study of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in blood and urine of pregnant and lactating women, as well as in umbilical cord blood. Environ Res 84:186–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vamnes JS, Eide R, Isrenn R, Hol PJ, Gjerdet NR (2000) Diagnostic value of a chelating agent in patients with symptoms allegedly caused by amalgam fillings. J Dent Res 79:868–874PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Ooyen A (2001) Theoretical aspects of pattern analysis. A simple introduction to principal component and cluster analysis. In: Dijkshoorn L, Towner KJ, Struelens M (eds) New approaches for the generation and analysis of microbial fingerprints. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 32–36; 184–191Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    WHO (1990) Environmental health criteria 101. Methylmercury. World Health Organization, Geneva, p 144Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    WHO (1991) Environmental health criteria 118. Inorganic mercury. World Health Organization, Geneva, p 168Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pier Franca Luglie
    • 1
  • Guglielmo Campus
    • 1
  • Giannina Chessa
    • 2
  • Giovanni Spano
    • 1
  • Giampiero Capobianco
    • 3
  • Giovanni Maria Fadda
    • 3
  • Salvatore Dessole
    • 3
  1. 1.Dental InstituteUniversity of SassariSassariItaly
  2. 2.Zooprophylactic InstituteUniversity of SassariSassariItaly
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacology, Gynaecology and ObstetricsUniversity of SassariSassariItaly

Personalised recommendations