Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
OtherResearch Letter

Care of Patients Who Are Worried about Mercury Poisoning from Dental Fillings

David Vearrier and Michael I. Greenberg
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2010, 23 (6) 797-798; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100038
David Vearrier
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael I. Greenberg
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: Public concern about adverse health effects from mercury exposure from dental amalgams remains a high-profile issue. Patients with nonspecific neuropsychiatric symptoms may incorrectly attribute their complaints to mercury poisoning, and some alternative medical providers diagnose mercury toxicity using nonvalidated tests or without testing at all.

Case report: We report the case of a 37-year-old female who was referred to our outpatient medical toxicology clinic by her family medicine physician after a wellness doctor involved in her care ordered a dimercaptopropanesulfonic acid (DMPS) challenge urine study that revealed an “elevated” mercury level.

Discussion: The use of postchelator challenge urine testing to diagnose mercury poisoning has not been validated. Use of such tests may cause falsely elevated urine mercury levels resulting in misdiagnosis of mercury poisoning and unncessary, expensive, and potentially dangerous chelation therapy.

Conclusion:Family medicine physicians may encounter patients who are concerned about mercury poisoning after undergoing postchelator challenge urine testing. In patients with a low suspicion for mercury toxicity, reassurance is adequate. In patients with moderate to high suspicion for mercury toxicity, a validated test for mercury, such as a 24-hour urine mercury level, or referral to a medical toxicologist is the most appropriate approach.

  • Heavy Metals
  • Mercury
  • Mercury Poisoning
  • Chelation Therapy

Public concern about mercury toxicity from dental amalgams remains an issue today despite the bulk of the scientific evidence suggesting that mercury amalgams do not result in adverse health effects.1–6 Mercury toxicity may result in a number of nonspecific neuropsychiatric symptoms, and patients who research their complaints using lay books, magazines, or the Internet may incorrectly ascribe their complaints to mercury toxicity. Some alternative medical providers may diagnose mercury toxicity using nonvalidated tests. We operate a medical toxicology clinic staffed by board-certified medical toxicologists where we see patients who have been referred by primary care physicians and occupational physicians because of concern about toxic exposures. We recently saw a patient who was referred to our clinic by her family physician after she reportedly had elevated urine mercury levels on a chelator challenge urine test that had been ordered by her “wellness physician.”

The patient, a 37-year-old woman, complained of fluctuations in weight, fatigue, weakness, agitation, difficulty with memory, numbness in her fingertips, and hair, skin, and nail changes during the preceding 4 years, which she was concerned were caused by her dental amalgams. Her medical history included hypothyroidism alternately treated with levothyroxine and porcine thyroid powder by her endocrinologist and her wellness physician, respectively. Her occupational history was negative for any remote or recent heavy metal exposure. Her physical examination was normal.

A dimercaptopropanesulfonic acid (DMPS) challenge urine study ordered by the patient's wellness physician reported an elevated urine mercury level of 53 μg of mercury per gram of creatinine. No reference range has been established for this test. Subsequently, a 24-hour urine mercury level was ordered by her family physician on our advice and contained <4 μg of mercury per liter of urine (normal, <20 μg of mercury per liter of urine).

The use of a chelator challenge urine test for heavy metals is a nonvalidated test for the diagnosis of heavy metal toxicity. Also known as postchallenge or postprovocation urine testing, the patient receives a chelating agent such as dimercaptosuccinic acid, dimercaprol, edetate calcium disodium, or DMPS. Depending on the agent used, the dose and route (oral or intravenous) of the chelator varies. In our patient's case, DMPS 250 mg was administered intravenously. Urine is then collected for a specified period of time after administration of the chelator. In the case of our patient, urine was collected for 2 hours afer DMPS administration. The use of a chelating agent increases the urinary concentrations of heavy metals.7 This results in falsely elevated levels of urine heavy metals, including mercury. Normal reference ranges have not been established for postchelator challenge urine testing for heavy metals.8

The increase in use of postchelator challenge urine testing by alternative medical providers has led the American College of Medical Toxicologists to issue a position statement recommending against the use of such testing, stating that “[it] is…the position of the American College of Medical Toxicology that postchallenge urinary metal testing has not been scientifically validated, has no demonstrated benefit, and may be harmful when applied in the assessment and treatment of patients in whom there is concern for metal poisoning.”8 There are no laws, however, protecting patients from non–evidence-based medicine or preventing the use of nonvalidated testing procedures.

The most important tool in the evaluation of a patient who is concerned about mercury poisoning is a careful occupational and environmental history, including possible dietary exposure through the consumption of seafood. In patients for whom there is concern of mercury exposure based on history or physical examination, a 24-hour urine collection is the most appropriate test to evaluate for inorganic or elemental mercury exposure, whereas a whole-blood mercury level is most useful for methylmercury exposure.5 These tests are typically available through regional reference laboratories.

In our patient, some or all her symptoms may have been caused by alternating use of levothyroxine and porcine thyroid powder for control of her hypothyroidism. We did not, however, review the results of her thyroid function tests. Our recommendations included no further chelation therapy, no further testing for heavy metals, the discontinuation of porcine thyroid powder, and further management of her hypothyroidism, as per her board-certified endocrinologist.

Family medicine physicians and other physicians involved in the primary care of patients may encounter the issue of postchelator challenge urine testing. The use of chelator challenge urine testing is not validated for the diagnosis of heavy metal toxicity and may result in patients being encouraged to undergo expensive, unnecessary, and potentially dangerous chelation therapy. Patients with a low suspicion for heavy metal toxicity and positive postchelator challenge urine testing for heavy metals often only require reassurance. For patients with moderate to high suspicion for heavy metal toxicity, such as those with occupational exposure to mercury, the use of a validated test for heavy metals or referral to a medical toxicologist is the most appropriate approach.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: none.

  • Conflict of interest: none declared.

  • Received for publication February 19, 2010.
  • Revision received June 17, 2010.
  • Accepted for publication June 23, 2010.

References

  1. ↵
    Bellinger DC, Trachtenberg F, Barregard L, et al. Neuropsychological and renal effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 295: 1775–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. DeRouen TA, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. Neurobehavioral effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 295: 1784–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. Vamnes JS, Eide R, Isrenn R, Hol PJ, Gjerdet NR. Blood mercury following DMPS administration to subjects with and without dental amalgam. Sci Total Environ 2003; 308: 63–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. Schuurs A, Exterkate R, ten Cate JM. Biological mercury measurements before and after administration of a chelator (DMPS) and subjective symptoms allegedly due to amalgam. Eur J Oral Sci 2000; 108: 511–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    Kales SN, Goldman RH. Mercury exposure: current concepts, controversies, and a clinic's experience. J Occup Environ Med 2002; 44: 143–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. Bailer J, Rist F, Rudolf A, et al. Adverse health effects related to mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings: toxicological or psychological causes? Psychol Med 2001; 31: 255–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Torres-Alanis O, Garza-Ocanas L, Bernal MA, Pineyro-Lopez A. Urinary excretion of trace elements in humans after sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2000; 38: 697–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Charlton N, Wallace KL. American College of Medical Toxicology position statement on post-chelator challenge urinary metal testing. Available at: http://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=2999&_id=52&zine=show. Accessed 24 November 2009.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 23 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 23, Issue 6
November-December 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Care of Patients Who Are Worried about Mercury Poisoning from Dental Fillings
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Care of Patients Who Are Worried about Mercury Poisoning from Dental Fillings
David Vearrier, Michael I. Greenberg
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2010, 23 (6) 797-798; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100038

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Care of Patients Who Are Worried about Mercury Poisoning from Dental Fillings
David Vearrier, Michael I. Greenberg
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2010, 23 (6) 797-798; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.06.100038
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Notes
    • References
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Re: Care of Patients Who Are Worried about Mercury Poisoning from Dental Fillings
  • This Issue: International Issues, Infectious Diseases, Medical Liability, and Medical Home Ideas
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Timing of Certification Stage Completion Associated with Subsequent Certification Exam Outcomes Among Board-Certified Family Physicians
  • Interpersonal Continuity of Care May Help Delay Progression to Type 2 Diabetes
  • Impact of Point of Care Hemoglobin A1c Testing on Time to Therapeutic Intervention
Show more Research Letter

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire