Exposure to mercury among Norwegian dentists and dental healthcare personnel

Gianpaolo Guzzi,Anna Ronchi,Paolo D Pigatto,Claudio Minoia

doi:10.5271/sjweh.2907

Abstract

Key terms dental healthcare; dental healthcare personnel; dentist; exposure; healthcare personnel; letter to the editor; mercury; Norway

Highlights

Svendsen et al [1] provided an excellent historical overview of chronic exposure to mercury vapors among Norwegian dental workers and found that the systemic level of exposure to mercury is greater among dental nurses than dentists at the workplace
In discussing the value of urine as an indicator of mercury exposure, the authors state: “The measured level of urinary mercury only reflects the exposure level for a relatively short period of the working life. This is the only objective measure on exposure that exists, and we think that a measured urine level may give an indication on the working conditions in the clinic at the time of the measurement.” [1] there is substantial evidence from studies among humans supporting the view that urinary mercury may not reflect long-term exposure to vapors of mercury generated from the handling of mercury amalgam in dental offices [2]
After the use of copper amalgam was banned – where liquid metallic mercury was mixed with metals using a mortar and pestle – because of its toxic effects for both dental patients and dental team members and high risk of contaminating the dental office, amalgam-replacement has become the major source of exposure to mercury for dental office staff, mainly in the form of mercury vapors

Summary

Introduction

Svendsen et al [1] provided an excellent historical overview of chronic exposure to mercury vapors among Norwegian dental workers and found that the systemic level of exposure to mercury is greater among dental nurses than dentists at the workplace. In discussing the value of urine as an indicator of mercury exposure, the authors state: “The measured level of urinary mercury only reflects the exposure level for a relatively short period of the working life.

Results

Conclusion