Dental Amalgam and Mercury Safety: Annotated Bibliography
This annotated bibliography examines the safety and health implications of dental amalgam fillings, with a focus on mercury toxicity, selenium interactions, and the debate between amalgam and composite dental materials. The paper critically evaluates two sources: a peer-reviewed scientific study on selenium concentrations in patients with amalgam-related health complaints, and a newspaper article presenting both sides of the amalgam-versus-composite debate for a general audience. Each annotation summarizes the source's content and methodology, then critically assesses its credibility, limitations, and relevance to ongoing discussions about dental amalgam safety.
- Introduction to Dental Amalgam Safety: Overview of dental amalgam safety debate
- Source One: Selenium, Mercury, and Amalgam Fillings: Study on selenium levels in amalgam patients
- Critical Evaluation of the Selenium Study: Methodological weaknesses and credibility assessment
- Source Two: Newspaper Coverage of the Amalgam Debate: Washington Post article on amalgam vs. composite
- Critical Evaluation of the Washington Post Article: Audience, bias, and utility of newspaper source
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each annotation is clearly divided into two parts: a content summary and a critical evaluation, demonstrating the standard annotated bibliography format.
- The critical evaluations go beyond description, identifying specific methodological weaknesses such as small sample sizes, missing demographic data, and inconsistent results.
- The paper engages with source credibility by noting publication type, potential bias, and audience — skills essential to academic source evaluation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates critical source evaluation — the ability to not only summarize what a source says but to interrogate its methodology, sample validity, and potential biases. For example, the student correctly identifies that inconsistent results across two study groups should have prompted replication rather than confirmation of the hypothesis, and that missing demographic data weakens the study's conclusions.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows the standard annotated bibliography structure: full citation in APA format, followed by a descriptive summary of the source's content and methodology, then a critical commentary assessing credibility, limitations, and usefulness. Two sources are annotated — one from a peer-reviewed scientific journal and one from a major national newspaper — offering variety in source type and audience.
Introduction to Dental Amalgam Safety
The following annotated bibliography examines two sources related to the safety of dental amalgam fillings, focusing on mercury toxicity, selenium interactions, and the ongoing debate between amalgam and composite dental materials. Each entry provides a summary of the source followed by a critical evaluation of its methodology and credibility.
Source One: Selenium, Mercury, and Amalgam Fillings
Hol, P. J., Vamnes, J. S., Gjerdet, N. R., Eide, R., & Isrenn, R. (2001). Dental amalgam and selenium in blood. Environmental Research, 87(3), 141–146. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/enrs.2001.4308
It has been surmised that selenium (Se) can protect against mercury (Hg) toxicity in humans, thanks to the Hg–Se complex linked to selenoprotein P in blood. The study, published in this peer-reviewed scientific journal, measured Se concentrations in persons with health problems attributed to dental amalgam fillings. Blood samples from 80 study participants were collected over the course of the study.
Two groups were examined. The first group consisted of 21 healthy controls with amalgam fillings and 20 patients who reported symptoms from their existing amalgam fillings. The second group consisted of 19 healthy controls with amalgam fillings and 20 symptomatic patients with fillings. In the first group, Se concentrations in the blood were statistically significantly lower among symptomatic patients than among healthy subjects, but in the second group there was no statistically significant difference. Nevertheless, the study concluded that people who experience health problems related to dental amalgam may have a selenium metabolism different from those who do not, and that further research is warranted given the relatively small sample size.
Critical Evaluation of the Selenium Study
Given the inconsistency of the results, the claim that problems with dental amalgams are linked to low selenium levels appears somewhat dubious. The study is published in a scientific rather than a dental journal, which lends it credibility and suggests a lower likelihood of professional bias, as the authors have no apparent personal or financial interest in the outcome. However, the total patient sample was extremely small. Each grouping of approximately 20 experimental subjects and 20 controls is insufficient to draw broad conclusions.
Furthermore, there was no discussion of the demographic characteristics of the two groups of patients, which could have influenced the results significantly. Past psychological as well as physical history could have affected participants' perceptions of the impact of amalgam fillings on their health. Racial, gender, and other demographic variables between the two groups might also explain the radically different outcomes. The logically consistent next step would have been to replicate the experiment with a third group, given the inconsistent results, rather than to conclude that the hypothesis was confirmed merely because one symptomatic group had lower selenium levels.
Source Two: Newspaper Coverage of the Amalgam Debate
Huget, J. (2002, March 26). Filling in for mercury: There's no proof dental amalgam is unsafe, but there are options for the wary. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
This article, from one of the most respected daily newspapers in the United States, addresses the use of mercury in dental amalgams. Mercury is a known toxin, but the American Dental Association (ADA) notes that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization have not found any health risks from its use in dental work. Dental composites have grown in popularity as alternatives to amalgams for both aesthetic and safety reasons, as they are tooth-colored. Amalgam is cheaper and ostensibly more durable, although some dentists prefer composite materials because they do not expand and adhere more closely to the tooth. The article presents both sides of the amalgam-versus-composite debate without taking a definitive position on either issue.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.