The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2012 ) > List of Articles


Perception of Patients with Amalgam Fillings about Toxicity of Mercury in Dental Amalgam

CT Bamise, Adeleke O Oginni, Michael A Adedigba, OO Olagundoye

Citation Information : Bamise C, Oginni AO, Adedigba MA, Olagundoye O. Perception of Patients with Amalgam Fillings about Toxicity of Mercury in Dental Amalgam. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (3):289-293.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1139

Published Online: 01-12-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).



The objective of this study is to evaluate the awareness of patients with dental fillings about the toxicity of mercury in dental amalgam.

Materials and methods

Adult patients having at least one amalgam filling in their mouth were recruited in the Oral Diagnosis Department of OAUTHC, Ile-Ife Dental Hospital. Participants were recruited consecutively as they report in the clinic. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire developed based on standard questions from relevant publications. They were asked to indicate the type of filling material in their mouth, ingredients of the material, previous knowledge of mercury in dental amalgam and ailments due to mercury.

They were to indicate their level of agreement with filling their cavities with dental amalgam despite prior information about its mercury content.


There were about 446 respondents analyzed; male, 194 (43.5%); female 252 (56.5%). Six (1.4%) and 21 (4.7%) respondents were primary and secondary schools students respectively; 15(3.4%) had no formal education while about 410 (91.9%) were either undergraduate or graduate. All of them had at least one amalgam filling. 249 (55%) participants know the type of filling on their teeth; 156 (34.5%) had the knowledge of the presence of mercury in dental amalgam while 26.1% believed mercury can cause problems in human beings. About 90 (19.9%) participants claimed to have heard about adverse reactions to dental amalgams and 34 (7.5%) of them have heard about people recovering from an illness after removal of their filling.

The level of agreement with filling their cavities with amalgam despite prior knowledge of its mercury content was 74% while 60% was observed for allowing just any material to be placed on their teeth.


Awareness of toxicity of mercury in dental amalgam was slightly low among the respondents studied. This may be suggested to be a reflection of nonexistent of global amalgam controversy in Nigeria.

How to cite this article

Bamise CT, Oginni AO, Adedigba MA, Olagundoye OO. Perception of Patients with Amalgam Fillings about Toxicity of Mercury in Dental Amalgam. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3):289-293.

PDF Share
  1. Amalgam toxicity—environmental and occupational hazards. Journal of Dentistry 2004;32:359-65.
  2. Dental amalgam: Update on safety concerns. JADA 1998;129:494-503.
  3. The use of amalgam in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):448-55.
  4. Mercury in dental amalgam: A neurotoxic risk? JAMA 2006;295(15):1835-36.
  5. The use of dental amalgam in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):439-47.
  6. Current Opinion on Druginduced Oral Reactions: A Comprehensive Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 March;(9)3:001-015.
  7. A review of drug-induced oral reactions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003;4(1):10-31.
  8. Oral lichen planus and allergy to dental amalgam restorations. Arch Dermatol 2004;140(12):1434-38.
  9. Report No 2652, 19 Feb, 1998. Helsetilsynet (Norwegian Board of Health Supervision).
  10. Swedish views on questions put at the stakeholder meeting concerning the mercury export ban and storage obligations of mercury 8th Sep, 2005. Brussels, European Commission, Ministry of Sustainable Development, Division for Eco-management and Chemicals, 2005.
  11. Dental amalgam: A report with reference to the medical devices directive 93/42/EEC from an Ad Hoc Working Group mandated by DGIII of the European Commission. Angelholm, Sweden, Nordiska Dental AB, 1998.
  12. American Dental Association (online article) (, accessed 26 Aug, 2009).
  13. Dental amalgam and mercury. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122:54-61.
  14. Estimation by a 24-hour study of the daily dose of intraoral mercury vapor inhaled after release from dental amalgam. J Dent Res 1990;69:1646-51.
  15. Risk assessment of mercury exposure from dental amalgams. J Public Health Dent 1988;48(3):172-77.
  16. Can a patient make an irrational choice? The dental amalgam controversy. Gen Dent 1992;40:186-87.
  17. Selection of restorative materials in dental treatment of children and adults in public and private dental care in Finland. Swed Dent J 1994;18:1-7.
  18. Amalgam safety and dentists. Attitude: A survey among a subpopulation of Nigerian Dentists. Operative Dentistry 2008;33(4):467-71.
  19. Mercury policy project. 14 Feb, 2006. ( Accessed 19 Apr, 2011).
  20. Dental amalgam: Filling a need or foiling health? (Dec 1993) FDA consumer 27: 22. ( Accessed 17 Sep, 2010).
  21. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill 1961.
  22. Market analysis of some mercury-containing products and their mercury-free alternatives in selected regions. ( Accessed 24 Jan, 2011.
  23. Are there alternatives to dental amalgam? J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122(3):77.
  24. Amalgam safety and alternative restorative materials: A cross sectional survey among dentists. The Saudi Dental Journal 1996;8(1):27-33.
  25. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Anal 1986;6:403-15.
  26. or Accessed on 10 Mar, 2011).
  27. United Nations Environmental Programme ( Accessed on 19th Jan, 2012).
  28. Assessment of dental waste management in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Waste Management and Research 2010;28:769-77.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.