Open Access

Effect of radiofrequency radiation from Wi-Fi devices on mercury release from amalgam restorations

Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering201614:12

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40201-016-0253-z

Received: 30 June 2015

Accepted: 1 July 2016

Published: 13 July 2016

Abstract

Background

Dental amalgam is composed of approximately 50% elemental mercury. Despite concerns over the toxicity of mercury, amalgam is still the most widely used restorative material. Wi-Fi is a rapidly using local area wireless computer networking technology. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates the effect of exposure to Wi-Fi signals on mercury release from amalgam restorations.

Methods

Standard class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 20 non-carious extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 10). The control group was stored in non-environment. The specimens in the experimental groups were exposed to a radiofrequency radiation emitted from standard Wi Fi devices at 2.4 GHz for 20 min. The distance between the Wi-Fi router and samples was 30 cm and the router was exchanging data with a laptop computer that was placed 20 m away from the router.

The concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva in the groups was evaluated by using a cold-vapor atomic absorption Mercury Analyzer System. The independent t test was used to evaluate any significant differences in mercury release between the two groups.

Results

The mean (±SD) concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva of the Wi-Fi exposed teeth samples was 0.056 ± .025 mg/L, while it was only 0.026 ± .008 mg/L in the non-exposed control samples. This difference was statistically significant (P =0.009).

Conclusion

Exposure of patients with amalgam restorations to radiofrequency radiation emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices can increase mercury release from amalgam restorations.

Keywords

Amalgam Wi-Fi Mercury release, Radiofrequency, Electromagnetic fields

Background

Dental amalgam is still the most widely used restorative material in the last 150 years especially in posterior teeth because of its high mechanical strength, durability, ease of manipulation, and low cost [15]. Dental amalgam is an alloy comprised of 50 % elemental mercury and a mixture of other metals such as silver, tin, copper, and sometimes palladium, indium and zinc [68]. Dental amalgam is considered as the primary source of continuous mercury exposure in general population [1, 911]. Mercury is a toxic element which can damage various organs such as central nervous system, renal, respiratory and hematologic systems [12, 13]. Because of the mercury toxicity, the use of mercury has been banned in some European countries [14]. The amount of mercury which releases from amalgam restorations depends on several factors such as number and size of the fillings, composition of amalgam, any other factors that causes load over the restorations like tooth brushing, chewing habits,and bruxism [8, 15].

Wi-Fi is a local area wireless computer networking technology and has been used drastically in houses and public places such as schools and hospitals during recent years [16]. It allows electronic devices such as personal computers, video-game consoles, smart phones, digital cameras and tablet computers to network using Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standards. These standards mainly use the 2.5 gigahertz (12 cm) UHF and 5 gigahertz (6 cm) SHF ISM radio bands [17]. The lower cost and easier deployment of these devices than wired computer networks lead to rapidly increase of Wi-Fi devices [18]. However, this also raised great public concern about the potential adverse effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted from these devices [19].

The adverse health impacts associated to exposure to some common sources of electromagnetic fields including laptop computers, mobile phones, MRI and mobile phone jammers have been evaluated by our laboratory in our previous investigations [2024]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates the effect of exposure to Wi-Fi signals on mercury release from amalgam restorations.

Methods

Teeth samples

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Twenty non-carious premolar teeth which were extracted as a part of orthodontic treatment were used in this study. The teeth were stored in isotonic saline solution for not longer than 3 months after surface debridement. The teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups of exposure and control, each containing 10 teeth.

Amalgam fillings

Standard class V cavities (3mm length, 2mm depth and 5 mm width) were prepared on the buccal surface using carbide burs (SS White Burs, Lakewood, NJ) and a high speed turbine under water spray. The cavities were restored with Cinalux (non-gama-2, spherical amalgam, Faghihi Dental, Tehran, Iran) amalgam. The amalgams were triturated according to manufacturers’ directions, and then they were condensed incrementally towards the cavity walls. All the procedures for restoration of the cavities were performed by the same clinician. The restored teeth were plunged in saline solution at 37° C for 14 days because as it was discussed by Muller Miny et al., the mercury release from amalgam restorations decrease gradually to a constant level 14 days after the filling [25]. Following that and before exposing the teeth, samples were poured into plastic tubes filled with artificial saliva. The thickness of the artificial saliva covered over teeth samples was 1.5 cm to mimic soft tissue.

Wi-Fi exposure

The exposure group was exposed to radiofrequency radiation emitted from standard Wi-Fi devices at 2.4 GHz for 20 min. The distance between the Wi-Fi router (D-Link, China) and samples was 30 cm and the router was exchanging data with a laptop computer that was placed 20 m away from the router. The control group was kept outside the experiment room. The geometry used for exposure is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

The geometry used for exposure of the teeth samples

Mercury measurement

Based on our previous experiments, it was clearly revealed that the pre-exposure mercury concentration in the saliva containing teeth samples with exactly identical fillings (the same cavities and amalgam type), was the same for all samples (the differences were not statistically significant). Therfore, the mercury levels were measured in the artificial saliva after exposure by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAAS; Analytical Jena, vario 6, Germany).

Statistical analysis

The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) (http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/ spss). The independent t test was used to compare the level of mercury release in the exposure and control groups to identify any statistically significant differences. P value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Descriptive statistics were presented as the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum in Table 1. The mean (±SD) concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva of the Wi-Fi exposed group was 0.056 ± .025 mg/L, while it was only 0.026 ± .008 mg/L in the non-exposed control samples. Therefore, the mean concentration of mercury in the Wi-Fi group was about twice of the control group. The observed difference in the concentration of mercury in the artificial saliva of the exposure and control group was statistically significant (P =0.009).
Table 1

The mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum of the mercury release in the two groups

Mercury release (mg/L)

Group

(P-value)

 

Control

Wi-Fi

 

Mean ± SD

(Range: min -max)

0.026 ± .008

(0.016 – 0.039)

0.056 ± .025

(0.020-0.100)

0.009

Discussion

Public concern about the possible adverse health effects of using Wi-Fi technology is increasing because of the widespread use of wireless communication systems [19]. In the present study, it was concluded that radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi devices significantly increased mercury release from amalgam restorations.

Mortazavi and Mortazavi have recently reviewed the published reports on the increased release of mercury from dental amalgam fillings after exposure to different sources of electromagnetic fields (e.g. MRI, mobile phones) [26]. These studies are summarized in Table 2. The first report on the role of exposure to MRI or microwave radiation emitted by mobile phones in increasing the release of mercury from dental amalgam filling was published by Mortazavi et al. in 2008 [27]. To overcome the limitations of their previous study, Mortazavi and his colleagues have recently studied the effects of stronger magnetic fields (1.5 T in their recent study vs. 0.25 T in their previous report). This study confirmed the previous findings and provided further support for increased release of mercury from dental amalgam fillings after MR imaging [28].
Table 2

Comparison of the findings of current study with other studies performed either on mercury release or amalgam microleakage after exposure to electromagnetic fields

Radiation source

Endpoint

Methods

Basic finding

Reference

Mobile Phone

Release of Mercury

Urine samples were collected from 14 female students

A statistically significant (p < 0.05) higher concentration of mercury was observed in the students who used mobile phones.

Mortazavi et al. [27]

MRI (0.23 T)

Release of Mercury

Stimulated saliva collected in 30 persons

Elevated urinary mercury concentration in the exposed group

Mortazavi et al. [27]

MRI (1.5 T)

Release of Mercury

Urinary concentrations of mercury in the MRI exposed and control subjects

The urinary mercury in the exposed group, 72 h after MRI (96 h after restoration),was significantly higher (p = 0.046).

Mortazavi et al. [28]

X-ray

Release of Mercury

Teeth samples were exposed to X-rays in a soft tissue-equivalent material

A significant increase in mercury was observed in the X-ray-exposed group (p ≤ 0.05).

Kursun et al. [42]

MRI

Release of Mercury

Teeth samples were exposed to MRI in a soft tissue-equivalent material

No significant difference was found in the MRI-exposed group.

Kursun et al. [42]

MRI (3 T)

Microleakage of amalgam

60 extracted teeth divided into experimental and control groups exposed/shamexposed to a magnetic field of 3 T for 20 min

significant differences in microleakage between the groups exposed to MRI and controls, whereas differences in microleakage between amalgam types were insignificant.

Yilmaz and Misirlioglu [30]

MRI (1.5 T)

Microleakage of amalgam

63 human freshly extracted premolars were divided into 3 groups (3 different amalgams). In each group, 50% of the samples were exposed to MRI.

Differences in microleakage within each group following MRI were significant in the GS-80 and Vivacap groups but not in the Cinalux group.

Shahidi et al. [29]

MRI (1.5 T)

Microleakage of amalgam

40 teeth were randomly divided into four groups.. The first and third groups were exposed to MRI.

No significant differences of occlusal and gingival surface microleakage after MRI exposure were observed.

Akgun et al. 2014 [29]

Wi-Fi

Mercury release

20 extracted teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups of Wi-Fi exposure and control.

A significant increase in mercury release was observed in Wi-Fi exposed group.

Current study

It should be noted that the results obtained in the studies performed on the role of exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance imaging on the microleakage of amalgam are strongly in line with the findings of Mortazavi et al. [29, 30]. To the best of our knowledge, our current study is the first study that investigates the effect of radiofrequency radiation emitted by Wi-Fi routers on mercury release from amalgam restorations.

Mercury is a toxic element which has adverse biological effects even at low doses [31]. Therefore, it seems to be necessary to apply a sensitive and reliable analytical technique to determine mercury content. Various analytical techniques has been used previously for the determination of mercury in environmental and biological samples such as cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry (CVAAS), cold vapor fluorescence spectrometry (CVAFS), inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP OES), electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (ET AAS), neutron activation analysis, mass spectrometry, anodic stripping voltammetry, and cold vapor inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (CV ICP-MS) [3235]. This study employed CVAAS method for measuring mercury released from dental amalgam. Because CVAAS is the most widely technique used in previous studies for detecting this element at low concentrations due to its high sensitivity and selectivity and because of its low cost [36, 37].

To improve the outcome of the west possible mercury release, we did not polish the cavities after restoration, because according to Ferracane et al. greater amounts of mercury would release from unpolished than polished surfaces [38].

Although the adverse health effects of the exposure to radiofrequency radiation emitted by Wi-Fi routers on some challenging phenomena such as human reproductive capabilities is well documented by some researchers around the world [39, 40], as far as we know, there is no report on the role of Wi-Fi radiation on the release of mercury from amalgam restorations. The mercury release from dental amalgam into saliva has been evaluated in previous studies both in vitro and in vivo conditions [25, 31, 4143]. One of the limitation of in vivo studies, as Mortazavi et al. discussed in their study, was that the participants were referred by their own physicians and the investigators did not have control over the number and surface of amalgam fillings [41]. However, in our in vitro study, we could control these factors by using identical class V fillings with the same dimensions through application of a template during cavity preparations since the mercury exposure correlates significantly to the number and surface of fillings [8, 15]. We also could control some other confounding factors which differ inter individually such as chewing habits and thermal effects [15, 44]. On the other hand some factors that may decrease the mercury release such as the liberation of corrosive products by contact of food and bacteria did not also interference with our findings.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which assesses the effect of exposure to Wi-Fi signals on mercury release from amalgam restorations. We speculated that exposure to radiofrequency emitted from Wi-Fi devices may result in mercury release from amalgam restorations. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are necessary to prove this contention.

Abbreviations

CV ICP-MS, cold vapor inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry; CVAAS, cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry; CVAFS, cold vapor fluorescence spectrometry; EMF, electromagnetic fields; ET AAS, electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry; ICP OES, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SHF, super high frequency; UHF, ultra high frequency; Wi-Fi, wireless fidelity.

Declarations

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Biomaterial Research center, School of Dentistry and Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Shiraz, Iran. The authors would like to thank Dr. Sh. Hamedani (DDS, MSc) for his editorial assistance.

Funding

This study was funded by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS). This research project received funding from SUMS to conduct the project. However, conception, design, acquisition of data and data analysis, interpretation and drafting of the manuscript were solely the responsibility of the authors. Moreover, the decision to submit the manuscript was solely the decision of the authors.

Availability of data and materials

The authors agree to make the raw data and materials described in their manuscript freely available to any scientist wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes (http://crrs.sums.ac.ir/fa/index.html).

Authors’ contributions

MP carried out the filling of the teeth and drafted the manuscript. SMJM participated in the design of the study and carried out the exposures and revised the manuscript. GM and MH performed the exposures and mercury measurements. Shoaleh Shahidi participated in the design of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the medical ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (No. 91-01-75).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
(2)
Medical Physics and Medical Engineering Department, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
(3)
Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
(4)
Biomaterial Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

References

  1. Clarkson T. The three modern faces of mercury. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110 suppl 1:11–23. Find this article online.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Newman SM. Amalgam alternatives: what can compete? J Am Dent Assoc. 1991;122(8):67–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Hamila NA, Oreby M, Al-nimer T, Hibishy H, Seleem M. Urinary Mercury Level, Neurobehavioral Performance And Some Biochemical Markers In Children with Amalgam Restorations. J Am Sci. 2013;9(12): 430–440.Google Scholar
  4. Levy M, Schwartz S, Dijak M, Weber J-P, Tardif R, Rouah F. Childhood urine mercury excretion: dental amalgam and fish consumption as exposure factors. Environ Res. 2004;94(3):283–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Fung YK, Molvar MP. Toxicity of mercury from dental environment and from amalgam restorations. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1992;30(1):49–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Guzzi G, Grandi M, Cattaneo C, Calza S, Minoia C, Ronchi A, Gatti A, Severi G. Dental amalgam and mercury levels in autopsy tissues: food for thought. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2006;27(1):42–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Fredin B. Mercury release from dental amalgam fillings. Int J Risk Safety Med. 1993;4(3):197–208.Google Scholar
  8. Bharti R, Wadhwani KK, Tikku AP, Chandra A. Dental amalgam: An update. J Conserv Dent: JCD. 2010;13(4):204.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Mutter J. Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2011;6(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-6-2.
  10. Ozdabak HN, Karaoğlanoğlu S, Akgül N, Polat F, Seven N. The effects of amalgam restorations on plasma mercury levels and total antioxidant activity. Arch Oral Biol. 2008;53(12):1101–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Organization WH. Inorganic mercury—Environmental health criteria. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1991. p. 118.Google Scholar
  12. Gauba P, Shakeel M, Gaur S. Mercury Neurotoxicity: a review of case studies. Asian J Multidiscip Stud. 2015;3(1):9–16.Google Scholar
  13. Clarkson TW, Magos L. The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2006;36(8):609–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Herman S. Industrial motor control. Boston, US: Cengage Learning Inc.; 2013.Google Scholar
  15. Al-Saleh I. Mercury (Hg) burden in children: the impact of dental amalgam. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(16):3003–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Sambucci M, Laudisi F, Nasta F, Pinto R, Lodato R, Altavista P, Lovisolo GA, Marino C, Pioli C. Prenatal exposure to non-ionizing radiation: effects of WiFi signals on pregnancy outcome, peripheral B-cell compartment and antibody production. Radiat Res. 2010;174(6a):732–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Lenton D. Speaking of Wi-Fi. IEE Rev. 2003;49(7):44–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Oni OM, Amuda DB, Gilbert CE. Effects of radiofrequency radiation from WiFi devices on human ejaculated semen. Int J Res Rev Appl Sci. 2011;19:292–4.Google Scholar
  19. Markovà E, Hillert L, Malmgren L, Persson BR, Belyaev IY. Microwaves from GSM mobile telephones affect 53BP1 and γ-H2AX foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;1172–1177.Google Scholar
  20. Mortazavi S, Rouintan M, Taeb S, Dehghan N, Ghaffarpanah A, Sadeghi Z, Ghafouri F. Human short-term exposure to electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones decreases computer-assisted visual reaction time. Acta Neurol Belg. 2012;112(2):171–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Mortazavi S, Vazife-Doost S, Yaghooti M, Mehdizadeh S, Rajaie-Far A. Occupational exposure of dentists to electromagnetic fields produced by magnetostrictive cavitrons alters the serum cortisol level. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2012;3(1):60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Mortazavi SMJ, Tavassoli A, Ranjbari F, Moammaiee P. Effects of laptop computers’ electromagnetic field on sperm quality. J Reprod Infertil. 2010;11(4):251–258.Google Scholar
  23. Mortazavi SMJ, Shahram T, Dehghan N. Alterations of visual reaction time and short term memory in military radar personnel. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(4):428.Google Scholar
  24. Mortazavi S, Parsanezhad M, Kazempour M, Ghahramani P, Mortazavi A, Davari M. Male reproductive health under threat: Short term exposure to radiofrequency radiations emitted by common mobile jammers. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6(2):124.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller‐Miny H, Erber D, Möller H, Müller‐Miny B, Bongartz G. Is there a hazard to health by mercury exposure from amalgam due to MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6(1):258–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Mortazavi G, Mortazavi SM. Increased Mercury Release from Dental Amalgam Restorations after Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields as a Potential Hazard for Hypersensitive People and Pregnant Women. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):287–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mortazavi SMJ, Daiee E, Yazdi A, Khiabani K, Kavousi A, Vazirinejad R, Behnejad B, Ghasemi M, Balali Mood M. Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use. Pak J Biol Sci. 2008;11(8):1142–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Mortazavi SMJ, Neghab M, Anoosheh SMH, Bahaeddini N, Mortazavi G, Neghab P, Rajaeifard A. High-field MRI and Mercury release from dental amalgam fillings. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2014;5(2):101–5.Google Scholar
  29. Shahidi SH, Bronoosh P, Alavi AA, Zamiri B, Sadeghi AR, Bagheri MH, Javadpour S. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on microleakage of amalgam restorations: an in vitro study. Dento maxillo Facial Radiol. 2009;38(7):470–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Yilmaz S, Misirlioglu M. The effect of 3 T MRI on microleakage of amalgam restorations. Dento maxillo Facial Radiol. 2013;42(8):20130072.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Mortazavi S, Neghab M, Anoosheh S, Bahaeddini N, Mortazavi G, Neghab P, Rajaeifard A. High-field MRI and mercury release from dental amalgam fillings. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2014;5(2 Apri):316-101-315.Google Scholar
  32. Leopold K, Foulkes M, Worsfold P. Methods for the determination and speciation of mercury in natural waters—a review. Anal Chim Acta. 2010;663(2):127–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. da Silva DG, Portugal LA, Serra AM, Ferreira SL, Cerdà V. Determination of mercury in rice by MSFIA and cold vapour atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Food Chem. 2013;137(1):159–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Matusiewicz H, Sturgeon RE. Chemical vapor generation with slurry sampling: a review of applications to atomic and mass spectrometry. Appl Spectrosc Rev. 2012;47(1):41–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Gao Y, Shi Z, Long Z, Wu P, Zheng C, Hou X. Determination and speciation of mercury in environmental and biological samples by analytical atomic spectrometry. Microchem J. 2012;103:1–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Bendl RF, Madden JT, Regan AL, Fitzgerald N. Mercury determination by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrometry utilizing UV photoreduction. Talanta. 2006;68(4):1366–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Segade SR, Tyson JF. Determination of inorganic mercury and total mercury in biological and environmental samples by flow injection-cold vapor-atomic absorption spectrometry using sodium borohydride as the sole reducing agent. Spectrochim Acta B At Spectrosc. 2003;58(5):797–807.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Ferracane J, Mafiana P, Cooper C, Okabe T. Time-dependent dissolution of amalgams into saline solution. J Dent Res. 1987;66(8):1331–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Avendaño C, Mata A, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, Doncel GF. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(1):39–45. e32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Mahmoudi R, Mortazavi SMJ, Safari S, Nikseresht M, Mozdarani H. Microwave Electromagnetic Radiations Emitted from Common Wi-Fi Routers Reduce Sperm Count and Motility. Iran J Radiat Res (IJRR). in press.Google Scholar
  41. Use FMP. Mercury release from dental amalgam restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile phone use. Pak J Biol Sci. 2008;11(8):1142–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Kursun S, Öztas B, Atas H, Tastekin M. Effects of X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging on mercury release from dental amalgam into artificial saliva. Oral Radiol. 2014;30(2):142–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Berglund A, Bergdahl J, Hansson MK. Influence of low frequency magnetic fields on the intra-oral release of mercury vapor from amalgam restorations. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(2 Pt 1):671–4.Google Scholar
  44. Soh G, Chew C, Lee A, Yeoh T. Thermal effect on the dissolution of mercury from two dental amalgams. J Oral Rehabil. 1991;18(2):179–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement