↓ Skip to main content

New science challenges old notion that mercury dental amalgam is safe

Overview of attention for article published in BioMetals, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 702)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 X users
facebook
13 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
New science challenges old notion that mercury dental amalgam is safe
Published in
BioMetals, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10534-013-9700-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin G. Homme, Janet K. Kern, Boyd E. Haley, David A. Geier, Paul G. King, Lisa K. Sykes, Mark R. Geier

Abstract

Mercury dental amalgam has a long history of ostensibly safe use despite its continuous release of mercury vapor. Two key studies known as the Children's Amalgam Trials are widely cited as evidence of safety. However, four recent reanalyses of one of these trials now suggest harm, particularly to boys with common genetic variants. These and other studies suggest that susceptibility to mercury toxicity differs among individuals based on multiple genes, not all of which have been identified. These studies further suggest that the levels of exposure to mercury vapor from dental amalgams may be unsafe for certain subpopulations. Moreover, a simple comparison of typical exposures versus regulatory safety standards suggests that many people receive unsafe exposures. Chronic mercury toxicity is especially insidious because symptoms are variable and nonspecific, diagnostic tests are often misunderstood, and treatments are speculative at best. Throughout the world, efforts are underway to phase down or eliminate the use of mercury dental amalgam.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 158 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 20%
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 17 11%
Other 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 41 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Chemistry 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 42 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,322,853
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from BioMetals
#15
of 702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,438
of 321,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMetals
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them