[Mutagenicity of dental amalgam].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: There is some debate concerning a possible relationship between dental fillings and multiple sclerosis. Many patients ask their dentist to remove fillings. TOXICITY: Dental fillings contain mercury (more than 50%) which can cross the blood-brain barrier. Massive mercurial intoxication is neurotoxic both for the central and peripheral nervous system. Dental fillings release as much mercury in 24 hours as is ingested in a normal meal, i.e. a level well under the neurotoxicity level. RELATIONSHIP: Mercurial poisoning is histologically, clinically, immunologically, and toxicollogically different from multiple sclerosis. Based on data available today, it is not warranted to propose removing dental fillings.
The antibacterial activity of five commercially available amalgams (Cupromuc, Dispersalloy, Fluoralloy, Predalloy, and Synalloy) against two bacterial species frequently isolated from dental plaque and caries (Actinomyces viscosus and Streptococcus mutans) was studied by use of a modification of the method of Orstavik (1985). All amalgams displayed some antibacterial properties. This antibacterial activity was amalgam- and bacteria-dependent. Cupromuc and Fluoralloy were the most active, and the non-gamma 2 amalgams showed intermediate activity. Combined with mechanical and biological properties, these differences should be taken into account when one is choosing an amalgam for clinical use.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.