General | Published:

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

BDJ volume 224, pages 542548 (13 April 2018) | Download Citation

Subjects

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.

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.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

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.

    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 (accessed March 2018).

  4. 4.

    FDI World Dental Federation. Use and future use of materials for dental restoration fdi advocacy toolkit. Available online at (Accessed March 2018).

  5. 5.

    , , , , , 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.

  6. 6.

    , , et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014; 93: 943–949.

  7. 7.

    , Bronkhorst, , , 12-year survival rate of composite vs amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 2010; 89: 1063–1067.

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

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

  10. 10.

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

  11. 11.

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

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

    , , , , Minamata disease revisited: an update on the acute and chronic manifestations of methyl mercury poisoning. J Neurol Sci 2007; 262: 131–144.

  14. 14.

    Study on the potential for reducing mercury pollution from dental amalgam and batteries. Final Report. European Commission 2012. Available online at: (accessed March 2018).

  15. 15.

    UNEP Minamata Convention on Mercury Text and Annexes. United Nations, 2013. Available online at: (accessed March 2018).

  16. 16.

    FDI Dental restorative materials and the Minamata Convention on Mercury Guidelines for successful implementation. Available online at: (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: (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.

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

  23. 23.

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

  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.

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

  27. 27.

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

  28. 28.

    , , , , , The environmental effects of dental amalgam. Aust Dent J 2000; 45: 246–249.

  29. 29.

    California Dental Association. Dental amalgam: Public health and the environment. 2016. Available online at (accessed March 2018).

  30. 30.

    YouGov UK. Majority of people want to be cremated when they die. 2016. Available online at: (accessed March 2018).

  31. 31.

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

  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: (Accessed 24 March 2018)

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

    , , , What every dentist should know about bisphenol A. Gen Dent 2012; 60: 424–432.

  36. 36.

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

  37. 37.

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

  38. 38.

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

  39. 39.

    , , Biocompatibility of resin-based dental materials. Materials 2009; 2: 514–548.

  40. 40.

    , , , , In vitro estrogenicity of resin composites. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 222–226.

  41. 41.

    , , , Cytotoxicity of components of resins and other dental restorative materials. J Oral Rehab 1994; 21: 453–462.

  42. 42.

    , , , , , Induction of DNA double-strand breaks in primary gingival fibroblasts by exposure to dental resin composites. Biomaterials 2010; 31: 2010–2014.

  43. 43.

    , , , , A review of the environmental fate, effects, and exposures of bisphenol A. Chemosphere 1998; 36: 2149–2173.

  44. 44.

    , , et al. Germ cell cancer and disorders of spermatogenesis: an environmental connection? APMIS 1998; 106: 3–12.

  45. 45.

    , , Association between urinary Bisphenol A concentration and obesity prevalence in children and adolescents. JAMA 2012; 308: 1113–1121.

  46. 46.

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

  47. 47.

    , , , Emerging estrogenic pollutants in the aquatic environment and breast cancer. Sánchez L, ed. Genes 2017; 8: 229.

  48. 48.

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

  49. 49.

    , , 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.

  50. 50.

    , , 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.

  51. 51.

    , , , , , , Low-dose developmental exposure to bisphenol A induces sex-specific effects in bone of Fischer 344 rat offspring. Environ Res 2017; 159: 61–68.

  52. 52.

    , , , , Mucotoxicity of dental composite resins on a tissue-engineered human oral mucosal model. J Dent 2008; 36: 331–336.

  53. 53.

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

  54. 54.

    , Rate of elution of leachable components from composite. Dent Mater 1990; 6: 282–287.

  55. 55.

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

  56. 56.

    , , , 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.

  57. 57.

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

  58. 58.

    , , , , , 2573 - Optimal management of resin-based composite waste: landfill vs. incineration. J Dent Res 2017; 96 (Spec Iss 2): 2573.

  59. 59.

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

  60. 60.

    , , , , , 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.

    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.

    and . Plastic in Nemo bubble bath poses threat to marine life. The Sunday Times. Published: 24 April 2016.

  63. 63.

    , , , Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009; 364: 1985–1998.

  64. 64.

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

  65. 65.

    , , , , , Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar Pollut Bull 2013; 69: 219–222.

  66. 66.

    , , , Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2011; 62: 2588–2597.

  67. 67.

    , , et al. Plastic in North Sea fish. Environ Sci Technol 2013; 47: 8818–8824.

  68. 68.

    , , , New techniques for the detection of microplastics in sediments and field collected organisms. Mar Pollut Bull 2013; 70: 227–233.

  69. 69.

    , , , Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2011; 62: 2588–2597.

  70. 70.

    , , Long-term release of monomers from modern dental-composite materials. Eur J Oral Sci 2009; 117: 68–75.

  71. 71.

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

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

  1. The University of Sheffield, Academic Unit of Restorative Dentistry, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    • S. Mulligan
    • , K. Moharamzadeh
    •  & N. Martin
  2. Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    • G. Kakonyi
    •  & S. F. Thornton

Authors

  1. Search for S. Mulligan in:

  2. Search for G. Kakonyi in:

  3. Search for K. Moharamzadeh in:

  4. Search for S. F. Thornton in:

  5. Search for N. Martin in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Mulligan.

About this article

Publication history

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.229