No Increased Mercury Release from Dental Restorations at 1.5T, 3T, or 7T MRI.
7 Tesla
MRI safety
dental amalgam
magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
Magnetic resonance in medicine
ISSN: 1522-2594
Titre abrégé: Magn Reson Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8505245
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2024
Feb 2024
Historique:
revised:
14
08
2023
received:
09
05
2023
accepted:
31
08
2023
medline:
1
12
2023
pubmed:
27
9
2023
entrez:
27
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dental amalgam contains mercury and is commonly used in dental restorations. The impact of MRI on mercury excretion from dental amalgam is not well understood across clinical field strengths, especially 7T. We investigated the effects of MRI exposure on mercury excretion using fresh, lab-created dental amalgam restorations and in extracted teeth with old, pre-existing restorations. Donated, unfilled human teeth (n = 120) were restored with amalgam before being stored in saline, artificial saliva, or a dry box prior to MRI scanning. The teeth were placed in individual tubes of fresh artificial saliva and scanned at 1.5T, 3T, or 7T or left unscanned as controls. Mercury concentrations were measured 24-30 h later. Donated teeth with pre-existing restorations (n = 40) were stored in artificial saliva, scanned at 7T or left unscanned as controls, and mercury concentration tested. For teeth extracted and restored in a laboratory, no significant difference was found (F = 2.42, P = 0.072) between mean mercury concentrations of unscanned teeth (13.72 μg/L) and teeth scanned at 1.5T (10.88 μg/L), 3T (12.65 μg/L), or 7T (8.88 μg/L). For teeth extracted with previously placed restorations, no significant difference (P = 0.288) was found between unscanned controls (4.28 μg/L) and teeth scanned at 7T (6.63 μg/L). MRI of dental amalgam does not significantly increase mercury excretion at 1.5T, 3T, or 7T compared to unscanned teeth. This holds true for controlled laboratory restorations as well as for those placed and lived with prior to extraction and scanning, demonstrating no added risk to the clinical patient or research subject.
Substances chimiques
Mercury
FXS1BY2PGL
Saliva, Artificial
0
Dental Amalgam
8049-85-2
Hymecromone
3T5NG4Q468
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
660-669Subventions
Organisme : Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science Small Grants Program
Organisme : Mayo Clinical Radiology Research
Informations de copyright
© 2023 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
The American Dental Association Reaffirms its Position on Dental Amalgam. American Dental Association; 2020.
Garvin J. ADA Reaffirms that Dental Amalgam Is ‘Durable, Safe, Effective’ Restorative Material. American Dental Association; 2020.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Information for Patients about Dental Amalgam Fillings. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2020.
Estrich CG, Lipman RD, Araujo MWB. Dental amalgam restorations in nationally representative sample of US population aged >/=15 years: NHANES 2011-2016. J Public Health Dent. 2021;81:327-330.
Yilmaz S, Adisen MZ. Ex vivo mercury release from dental amalgam after 7.0-T and 1.5-T MRI. Radiology. 2018;288:799-803.
Mortazavi SMJ, Mortazavi G. Ex vivo mercury release from dental amalgam. Radiology. 2018;289:273-274.
Muller-Miny H, Erber D, Moller H, Muller-Miny B, Bongartz G. Is there a hazard to health by mercury exposure from amalgam due to MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6:258-260.
Unal Erzurumlu Z, Guler C, Uslu Cender E, Cakici EB, Cankaya S. The effect of 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging on microleakage of amalgam restorations. Microsc Res Tech. 2019;82:1878-1883.
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. 2013;30:142-146.
Allison JR, Chary K, Ottley C, et al. The effect of magnetic resonance imaging on mercury release from dental amalgam at 3T and 7T. J Dent. 2022;127:104322.
Ozdede M, Yilmaz S. Evaluation of mercury release from dental amalgam after cone beam computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging with 3.0-T and 1.5-T magnetic field strengths. Oral surg Oral med Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2020;130:603-608.
Yilmaz S, Misirlioglu M. The effect of 3 T MRI on microleakage of amalgam restorations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42. doi:10.1259/dmfr.20130072
Yılmaz F, Murat S, Baltacıoğlu İH, Ayyıldız S, Kamburoglu K. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging on the microleakage of five restorative materials: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2021;132:239-246.
Fagan AJ, Jacobs PS, Hulshizer TC, et al. 7T MR thermometry technique for validation of system-predicted SAR with a home-built radiofrequency wrist coil. Med Phys. 2021;48:781-790.
Nixon DE, Burritt MF, Moyer TP. The determination of mercury in whole blood and urine by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Spectrochim Acta Part B: Atomic Spectrosc. 1999;54:1141-1153.
Hanley MM, Eckdahl SJ, Kiedrowski B, et al. A comparison of methods for attenuation of oxide interferences in cadmium and mercury analysis by ICP-MS. 38th Federation of Analytical Chemistry and Spectroscopy Societies, Reno, Nevada, 2-6 October 2011. Federation of Analytical Chemistry and Spectroscopy Societies (FACSS); 2011.
Armbruster DA, Pry T. Limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation. Clin Biochem Rev. 2008;29(Suppl 1):S49-S52.
Fisher JF, World Health Organization. Elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds: human health aspects. World Health Organization. 2003.
Rotstein I, Avron Y, Shemesh H, Dogan H, Mor C, Steinberg D. Factors affecting mercury release from dental amalgam exposed to carbamide peroxide bleaching agent. Am J Dent. 2004;17:347-350.
Marek M. Dissolution of mercury from dental amalgam at different pH values. J Dent Res. 1997;76:1308-1315.
Aframian DJ, Davidowitz T, Benoliel R. The distribution of oral mucosal pH values in healthy saliva secretors. Oral Dis. 2006;12:420-423.
Gittings S, Turnbull N, Henry B, Roberts CJ, Gershkovich P. Characterisation of human saliva as a platform for oral dissolution medium development. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2015;91:16-24.
Kalantzi L, Goumas K, Kalioras V, Abrahamsson B, Dressman JB, Reppas C. Characterization of the human upper gastrointestinal contents under conditions simulating bioavailability/bioequivalence studies. Pharm Res. 2006;23:165-176.
Baliga S, Muglikar S, Kale R. Salivary pH: a diagnostic biomarker. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013;17:461-465.
Keshavarz M, Eslami J, Abedi-Firouzjah R, Mortazavi SA, Abbasi S, Mortazavi G. How do different physical Stressors' affect the mercury release from dental amalgam fillings and microleakage? A systematic review. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2022;12:227-236.
Mortazavi G, Mortazavi SAR, Mehdizadeh AR. "triple M" effect: a proposed mechanism to explain increased dental amalgam microleakage after exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2018;8:141-146.
Bjorkman L, Lind B. Factors influencing mercury evaporation rate from dental amalgam fillings. Scand J Dent Res. 1992;100:354-360.
Reher V, Reher P, Peres KG, Peres MA. Fall of amalgam restoration: a 10-year analysis of an Australian university dental clinic. Aust Dent J. 2021;66:61-66.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): IEC 60601-2-33. Medical electrical equipment -Part 2-33: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. 4.0 ed. 2022.