Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The environmental impact of dental amalgam and resin-based composite materials

Key Points

  • An overview of commonly used dental materials and the impacts of their use on the environment is presented.

  • Environmental pollution pathways are considered for both amalgam and resin-based composite.

  • Microplastic pollution from dental resin-based composite applications is highlighted.

Abstract

Direct-placement dental restorative materials include dental amalgam, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, compomer and resin-based composite (RBC). The choice of restorative material is determined by its ability to restore the structure and/or the aesthetic appearance of the dentition and to impart a net therapeutic value. In this way, the most appropriate material system is chosen to manage each particular clinical situation in the most effective manner. The most commonly used direct-placement materials in everyday modern dentistry are dental amalgam and resin-based composites. To date, concerns about the environmental impact from the use of dental materials has focused on dental amalgam and mercury release. It is now evident that the continued use of dental amalgam is time-limited on the basis of environmental pollution as recommended by the Minamata Treaty. The recommendations include a planned phase-down of use of dental amalgam with an anticipated complete phase-out by 2030. The environmental impact of other restorative dental materials deserves further consideration. This article provides a detailed overview of the environmental issues associated with the use of dental amalgam, the potential environmental issues associated with the alternative resin-based composite restorative materials and to consider recommendations for further research.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

References

  1. 1

    SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks). Scientific opinion on the safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration materials for patients and users (update). 29 April 2015.

  2. 2

    Noort R V. Introduction to dental materials. Edinburgh: Mosby/Elsevier, 2013.

  3. 3

    Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008. Available online at http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/852/oj (accessed March 2018).

  4. 4

    FDI World Dental Federation. Use and future use of materials for dental restoration fdi advocacy toolkit. Available online at www.fdiworlddental.org/sites/default/files/media/images/use_of_materials_english.pdf (Accessed March 2018).

  5. 5

    Rasines Alcaraz M G, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin P R, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 31: CD005620. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub 2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Opdam N J, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 943–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Opdam N J, Bronkhorst, E M, Loomans B A, Huysmans M C. 12-year survival rate of composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 1063–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Mulligan S, Gibson B, Kakonyi G et al. The environmental impact of dental materials: A sociological study. J Dent Res 2017; 96 (Spec Iss B): 48.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    British Dental Association. Restorative materials and environmental pollution, BDA Evidence Summary. February 2013.

  10. 10

    Aminzadeh K, Etminan M. Dental amalgam and multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Public Health Dent 2007; 67: 64–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Bates M. Mercury amalgam dental fillings: An epidemiologic assessment. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 2006; 209: 309–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Harada M. Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Crit Rev Toxicol 1995; 25: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Ekino S, Susa M, Ninomiya T, Imamura K, Kitamura T. Minamata disease revisited: an update on the acute and chronic manifestations of methyl mercury poisoning. J Neurol Sci 2007; 262: 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries. Final Report. European Commission 2012. Available online at: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/final_report_110712.pdf (accessed March 2018).

  15. 15

    UNEP Minamata Convention on Mercury Text and Annexes. United Nations, 2013. Available online at: http://mercuryconvention.org/Portals/11/documents/Booklets/Minamata%20Convention%20on%20Mercury_booklet_English.pdf (accessed March 2018).

  16. 16

    FDI Dental restorative materials and the Minamata Convention on Mercury Guidelines for successful implementation. Available online at: www.fdiworldental.org/oral-health/dental-materials/minamata-convention-on-mercury-guidelines-for-successful-implementation.aspx (accessed March 2018).

  17. 17

    AMAP/UNEP. Technical Background Report for the Global Mercury Assessment 2013, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway/UNEP Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.

  18. 18

    Study on EU Implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury FINAL REPORT 30 MARCH 2015. Available online at: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/MinamataConventionImplementationFinal.pdf (accessed March 2018).

  19. 19

    IOMCC/UNEP/WHO. Guidance for identifying populations at risk from mercury exposure. UNEP DTIE Chemicals Branch and WHO Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Foodborne Diseases. Geneva, 2008.

  20. 20

    Scientific Committee On Health And Environmental Risks (SCHER). Opinion on the environmental risks and indirect health effects of mercury in dental amalgam. 2008.

  21. 21

    Dental amalgam: A scientific review and recommended public health service strategy for research, education and regulation. Public Health Service U S. Department of Health and Human Services, January 1993.

  22. 22

    Skare I, Engqvist A. Human exposure to mercury and silver released from dental amalgam restorations. Arch Environ Health 1994; 49: 384–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Mackert J R Jr, Berglund A. Mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings: absorbed dose and the potential for adverse health effects. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997; 8: 410–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Final rule. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Dental devices: classification of dental amalgam, reclassification of dental mercury, designation of special controls for dental amalgam, mercury, and amalgam alloy. Fed Regist 2009; 74: 38685–38714.

  25. 25

    Danish EPA. Mass flow analysis of mercury 2001. Environmental Project 926. 2004.

  26. 26

    Cooley R, Berkmeier W, Lubow R. Evaluation of ability of various agents to suppress mercury vaporization. Clin Prev Dent 1985; 7: 29–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Department of Health. Environment and sustainability. Health Technical Memorandum 07–01: Safe management of healthcare waste. 2013.

  28. 28

    Chin G, Chong J, Kluczewska A, Lau A, Gorjy S, Tennant M. The environmental effects of dental amalgam. Aust Dent J 2000; 45: 246–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    California Dental Association. Dental amalgam: Public health and the environment. 2016. Available online at https://www.cda.org/Portals/0/pdfs/policy_statements/issue_amalgam.pdf (accessed March 2018).

  30. 30

    YouGov UK. Majority of people want to be cremated when they die. 2016. Available online at: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/16/majority-people-want-be-cremated-when-they-die/ (accessed March 2018).

  31. 31

    Rahill P. Mercury rising? Analyzing emissions and the cremation process. Cremationist 2008; 44: 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    US Department of Energy. Information on compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and mercury. Washington D C: U S. Department of Energy, 2010.

  33. 33

    Mercury emissions from crematoria. Consultation on an assessment by the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit. DEFRA 2003. Available online at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100713193736/http://defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/pollution/ppc/old-consultations/crematoria/consultation.pdf (Accessed 24 March 2018)

  34. 34

    Mackert J R Jr., Wahl M J. Are there acceptable alternatives to amalgam? J Calif Dent Assoc 2004; 32: 601–610.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Labauve J R, Long K N, Hack G D, Bashirelahi N. What every dentist should know about bisphenol A. Gen Dent 2012; 60: 424–432.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Bowen R L. Use of epoxy resins in restorative materials J Dent Res 1956; 35: 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Drummond J L. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 710–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Ferracane J. Resin composite - state of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Moharamzadeh K, Brook I M, Van Noort R. Biocompatibility of resin-based dental materials. Materials 2009; 2: 514–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Wada H, Tarumi H, Imazato S, Narimatsu M, Ebisu S. In vitro estrogenicity of resin composites. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 222–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Wataha J C, Hanks C T, Strawn S E, Fat J C. Cytotoxicity of components of resins and other dental restorative materials. J Oral Rehab 1994; 21: 453–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Urcan E, Scherthan H, Styllou M, Haertel U, Hickel R, Reichl F X. Induction of DNA double-strand breaks in primary gingival fibroblasts by exposure to dental resin composites. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 2010–2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Staples C A, Dorn P B, Klecka G M, O'Block S T, Harris L R. A review of the environmental fate, effects, and exposures of bisphenol A. Chemosphere 1998; 36: 2149–2173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Skakkebaek N E, Meyts E R, Jorgensen N et al. Germ cell cancer and disorders of spermatogenesis: an environmental connection? APMIS 1998; 106: 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Trasande L, Attina T M, Blustein J. Association between urinary Bisphenol A concentration and obesity prevalence in children and adolescents. JAMA 2012; 308: 1113–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Munoz de Toro, M M, Markey C M et al. Perinatal exposure to Bisphenol A alters peripubertal mammary gland development in mice. Endocrinology 2005; 146: 4138–4147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Lecomte S, Habauzit D, Charlier T D, Pakdel F. Emerging estrogenic pollutants in the aquatic environment and breast cancer. Sánchez L, ed. Genes 2017; 8: 229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    Wang Z, Liu H, Liu S. Low-dose Bisphenol A exposure: A seemingly instigating carcinogenic effect on breast cancer. Adv Sci 2017; 4: 1600248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Kingman A, Hyman J, Masten S A et al. Bisphenol A and other compounds in human saliva and urine associated with the placement of composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2012; 143: 1292–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Lejonklou M H, Dunder L, Bladin E et al. Effects of low-dose developmental Bisphenol A exposure on metabolic parameters and gene expression in male and female fischer 344 rat offspring. Environ Health Perspect 2017; 125: 067018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Lind T, Lejonklou M H, Dunder L, Rasmusson A, Larsson S, Melhus H, Lind P M. Low-dose developmental exposure to bisphenol A induces sex-specific effects in bone of Fischer 344 rat offspring. Environ Res 2017; 159: 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Moharamzadeh K, Van Noort R, Brook I M, Scutt A M, Thornhill M H. Mucotoxicity of dental composite resins on a tissue-engineered human oral mucosal model. J Dent 2008; 36: 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Olea N, Pulgar R, Perez P et al. Estrogenicity of resin based composites and sealants used in dentistry. Environ Health Perspect 1996; 104: 298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Ferracane J L, Condon J R. Rate of elution of leachable components from composite. Dent Mater 1990; 6: 282–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Ruse N. D, Sadoun M J. Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J. Dent. Res. 2014; 93: 1232–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    Moharamzadeh K, Van Noort R, Brook I M, Scutt A M. HPLC analysis of components released from dental composites with different resin compositions using different extraction media. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18: 133–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Peutzfeldt A. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105: 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Mulligan S, Fairburn A, Kakonyi G, Moharamzadeh K, Thornton S F, Martin N. 2573 - Optimal management of resin-based composite waste: landfill vs. incineration. J Dent Res 2017; 96 (Spec Iss 2): 2573.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    Erdal, S, Orris P. Mercury in dental amalgam and resin-based alternatives: A comparative health risk evaluation 2012. Health Care Research Collaborative, Vol.10.

  60. 60

    Cooper N J, Bower G, Tyson R, Flikweert J J, Rayner S, Hallas A. Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 2012. CIRIA. ISBN: 978-0-86017-721-0.

  61. 61

    Brand J H. Assessing the risk of pollution from historic coastal landfills. Executive Summary for the Environment Agency by Dr James H. Brand and Professor Kate Spencer. London: Queen Mary University of London, 2017. PhD thesis

  62. 62

    Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Joseph Hook . Plastic in Nemo bubble bath poses threat to marine life. The Sunday Times. Published: 24 April 2016.

  63. 63

    Barnes D K A, Galgani F, Thompson R C, Barlaz M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009; 364: 1985–1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Engler R E. The complex interaction between marine debris and toxic chemicals in the ocean. Environ Sci Technol 2012; 46: 12302–12315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65

    Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Fukuwaka M, Watanuki Y. Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar Pollut Bull 2013; 69: 219–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway T S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2011; 62: 2588–2597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    Foekema E M, Gruijter C D, Mergia M T et al. Plastic in North Sea fish. Environ Sci Technol 2013; 47: 8818–8824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    Claessens M, van Cauwenberghe L, Vandegehuchte M B, Janssen C R. New techniques for the detection of microplastics in sediments and field collected organisms. Mar Pollut Bull 2013; 70: 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69

    Cole M, Lindeque P, Halsband C, Galloway T S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2011; 62: 2588–2597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    P, König A, Hellwig E, Kümmerer K. Long-term release of monomers from modern dental-composite materials. Eur J Oral Sci 2009; 117: 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    Sasaki N, Okuda K, Kato T et al. Salivary bisphenol-A levels detected by ELISA after restoration with composite resin. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2005; 16: 297–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the Shirley Glasstone Hughes Trust Fund in the form of a research grant that has enabled the production of this paper and ongoing work by the research team into this field.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Mulligan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mulligan, S., Kakonyi, G., Moharamzadeh, K. et al. The environmental impact of dental amalgam and resin-based composite materials. Br Dent J 224, 542–548 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.229

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links