Amalgam Removal: How to Remove It Safely and Detox the Right Way

🦷

A clear distinction up front: who does what

The amalgam removal itself is done by your dentist, not by Vivecura. What I accompany is the medical side before and after: the diagnostics of whether and how much mercury can actually be mobilised, and an orderly detox with mineral monitoring. That is why this article explains both: how to recognise a good protective protocol at the dentist, and what a sensible detox afterwards looks like.

Diagnostics & detox Removal: dentist Part of the heavy metals cluster

Between "just drill it out" and "a little remedy afterwards"

Many people sit in front of the screen with a clear decision: the amalgam has to go. They type "remove amalgam" or "amalgam detox" into the search bar and essentially find two kinds of answers. On one side, dentist pages where the word safe appears without anyone explaining what that actually means. On the other side, detox lists with chlorella and cilantro that make it sound as if, after the drill, a few capsules settle everything.

This article steps in at exactly that moment of uncertainty. I want neither to play it down for you nor to dramatise it. I want to show you the two levers that truly matter in the amalgam question and that almost no one thinks of together. First: how it is removed governs the short-term peak exposure. Second: removal does not deal with the old burden deposited in the tissue. And the order of things afterwards decides whether a detox makes sense or is just busywork.

What this article is about The protective protocol during removal as a risk window in its own right. A patient checklist for recognising a good setting. The half-life logic of why filling out is not the same as mercury out. And an orderly detox sequence: first remove safely, let it settle, measure, then mobilise in a targeted way and with monitoring. The general question of how dangerous a filling sitting in place actually is belongs in the article on amalgam fillings.

The most important rethink first

Filling out does not mean mercury out. The most common error of reasoning online is the idea that the problem is solved once the filling is taken out. That is only true for the ongoing source. The inorganic mercury that has deposited in the tissue over the years follows a long half-life and stays put until it is either slowly excreted on its own or deliberately mobilised.

That is why removal is the first step, not the whole journey. And that is why afterwards you need a question instead of a reflex: how much is even still there, and is an active detox worthwhile?

The most dangerous minute is often the removal itself

Many people who have lived for years without complaints with their fillings start to worry precisely before the appointment. That is understandable and even justified, though for a different reason than often assumed. The issue here is not the filling that has been sitting there since yesterday, but the brief moment of drilling.

Amalgam drilled out dry and without protection briefly releases a peak of mercury vapour and the finest particles. This is exactly why the way it is removed determines this acute exposure. There are surprisingly clear measurement data on this, and they show: the difference between a protected and an unprotected approach is not cosmetic, it is an order of magnitude.

Simulator measurement · Room air Warwick et al. 2013 · J Occup Med Toxicol

In a jaw simulator, mercury vapour in the room air was measured while drilling out amalgam under three conditions. With water cooling plus strong suction the mean was about 8 µg/m³, with suction alone around 141, and with no protection at all around 214 µg/m³. Without protection, 36 percent of the values exceeded the reference limit used.

For you this means: how it is removed can shift the short-term vapour exposure by roughly a factor of ten. Water cooling and strong suction are the visible difference, not an accessory.

Warwick R, O'Connor A, Lamey B. 2013. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6673-8-27

This effect does not stay in the model. It could also be measured in humans. Several controlled comparisons show that a rubber dam, a sheet that seals the tooth off from the rest of the mouth, can dampen the mercury spike in the blood after removal.

Controlled human comparison · n=28 Berglund & Molin 1997 · Dent Mater

In 28 people all amalgam restorations were removed in one session, 18 with a rubber dam, 10 without. Only the group without a rubber dam showed significant mercury increases in the blood. One year later both groups were below their baseline values, on average around 52 percent lower in plasma and 76 percent lower in urine.

For you this means: a rubber dam can measurably dampen the spike right after removal, and over the long term the burden drops markedly after removal.

Berglund A, Molin M. 1997. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80099-1

To stay honest: studies like Kremers 1999 and the Munich research group around Halbach emphasise that this protective effect is real, but small and short-lived. For a single filling it hardly carries weight. For a larger remediation with several fillings the benefit adds up. That is not a weakness of the protective protocol but a realistic appraisal: it is about clean craftsmanship, not a miracle step.

Controlled human comparison · n=20 Kremers et al. 1999 · Eur J Oral Sci

With removal both with and without a rubber dam following an identical protocol, the no-rubber-dam case showed a plasma rise on days 1 and 3, with a mean peak around 0.6 ng/ml and a decline over days to weeks. The rubber dam effect was measurable, but of limited toxicological significance.

For you this means: protective measures have a measurable effect, yet the spike itself is small. The gain lies above all in the sum across several fillings.

Kremers L, Halbach S, Willruth H, et al. 1999. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1999.eos1070307.x

How to recognise a good removal setting

You do not have to be a dentist to judge a clean approach. There are a few concrete things you can ask about. If a practice explains them of its own accord, that is a good sign. If only the word safe appears on the website without anyone giving it substance, you are entitled to dig deeper.

Patient checklist: features of a protected approach

Rubber dam: A rubber sheet seals off the affected tooth from the rest of the mouth, so that particles and rinsing water do not reach the throat and saliva.
Strong tooth-level suction: A powerful suction directly at the working area captures vapour and shavings where they arise.
Continuous water cooling: Plenty of water keeps the filling cool and binds part of the vapour. Dry drilling is the opposite of this.
Lifting out instead of drilling apart: Where possible, the filling is lifted out in larger pieces rather than fully pulverised. Less dust means less vapour.
Fresh air and room suction: An additional room suction or good ventilation can lower the exposure for everyone in the room, including the team.
For a large remediation: a calm staged approach: Several fillings do not necessarily have to come out in a single long session. How it is split up is decided by your dentist on a case-by-case basis.

Important for context This checklist is patient education, not a dental instruction and not a recommendation for a particular practice. The technical procedure is up to your dentist. But you are entitled to know what you can ask about, so that you can make an informed decision.

Why filling out does not settle the body's burden

Imagine you did nothing about a leaking tap for years, and now you finally turn it off. That is real progress: nothing more is coming in. But what has already seeped into the ground does not disappear with it. It takes time until it is broken down or flushed out. This is exactly how the inorganic mercury behaves that has deposited in the tissue over the years from the fillings.

The ongoing source dries up with removal, the data show that clearly. But the deposited old burden follows its own, slow kinetics. And right around the removal it can even go up first before it goes down.

Longitudinal up to 3 years · n=12 Sandborgh-Englund et al. 1998 · J Dent Res

In 12 healthy people all fillings were removed in one session and mercury in blood, plasma and urine was followed closely. After a temporary rise within 48 hours it fell exponentially. The half-life was a median of 88 days in plasma and 46 days in urine, with follow-up in some up to three years.

For you this means: after removal the mercury drops only slowly, over weeks to months. The filling gone does not mean the burden gone immediately.

Sandborgh-Englund G, Elinder CG, Langworth S, et al. 1998. DOI: 10.1177/00220345980770041501

How long mercury stays in the body after removal

Saliva half-life approx. 1.8 days

Urine half-life approx. 46 days

Plasma half-life approx. 88 days

Tissue depot considerably longer

Bar width = rough relative residence time after removal. The quickly measurable fractions in saliva and urine say little about deep-seated tissue depots. This very gap is the reason why measuring before detoxing makes sense.

That removal itself already lowers the inorganic burden noticeably is shown by the most robust study on this topic, a randomised controlled trial. At the same time it dispels a widespread expectation.

RCT, 3 arms · n=82 Halbach et al. 2007 · Environ Res

82 patients were divided into three groups: removal only, removal plus an unspecific accompanying "detox", and no removal. After removal the inorganic mercury fell rapidly and stabilised after about 60 days at around 27 percent of the baseline. The unspecific detox support brought no clear added benefit in lowering mercury.

For you this means: removal alone already lowers the inorganic burden markedly. A blanket accompanying detox without a plan showed no visible added value here. That argues against the capsule reflex and for a considered approach.

Halbach S, Vogt S, Köhler W, et al. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2007.07.005

That it can even go up briefly around the removal before it drops shows up especially clearly in the stool. Here a lot of mercury is excreted in the first few days, another argument for a clean protective and suction setting.

Saliva & stool · n=10 Björkman et al. 1997 · Toxicol Appl Pharmacol

Two days after removal of all fillings, mercury in the stool rose sharply and then fell again. In saliva an exponential decline showed up with a half-life of around 1.8 days.

For you this means: right around removal a lot of mercury is briefly excreted via the gut. This spike is short, but it underlines why removal should run with clean protection.

Björkman L, Sandborgh-Englund G, Ekstrand J. 1997. DOI: 10.1006/taap.1997.8128

Which measure most reliably reflects the current burden has also been studied. Plasma reacts fastest to the change because it shows the ongoing transport fraction.

Kinetics · n=29 Halbach et al. 2000 · Sci Total Environ

In volunteers with a low amalgam burden, mercury rose temporarily only in plasma, significantly so on days 1 and 3 in the group without a rubber dam. In the rubber dam group the values fell below baseline as early as day 30. Plasma reacted fastest to the change in status.

For you this means: plasma mercury reflects the current burden most reliably and responds directly to the removal of the fillings.

Halbach S, Welzl G, Kremers L, et al. 2000. DOI: 10.1016/s0048-9697(00)00545-3

Exactly when excretion really turns downward has also been studied. In another paper from the Munich group the significant decline only set in around 100 days after removal. That is not a detail but a practical argument: letting the fresh phase settle first means working with the body's kinetics rather than against them.

Human review · own study series Ekstrand et al. 1998 · Eur J Oral Sci

A summary of several human studies on mercury in saliva, stool, blood, plasma and urine before and up to 60 days after removal. After 60 days plasma mercury was reduced to about 40 percent of baseline.

For you this means: across all body fluids the mercury falls after removal, but gradually, not abruptly.

Ekstrand J, Björkman L, Edlund C, Sandborgh-Englund G. 1998. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1998.eos10602ii03.x

Kinetics study · n=29 Halbach et al. 1998 · Environ Res

The systemic mercury transfer was followed before and after the emission stop, that is, removal. There was a temporary plasma rise, dampened with rubber dam use, and a significant decline in excretion only about 100 days after removal.

For you this means: months can pass before excretion really drops. The timing of a detox should take that into account.

Halbach S, Kremers L, Willruth H, et al. 1998. DOI: 10.1006/enrs.1998.3829

The mercury does not go into the bin with the filling

The robust human data paint a consistent picture. Right after removal: a short spike. Then: a slow decline over weeks to months, with half-lives of around 46 to 88 days in the measurable fractions and an even longer residence time in tissue.

This is the biological basis for the central sentence of this article: Removal is the first step. Whether an active detox makes sense afterwards is a separate, measurable question.

The orderly sequence: remove, let settle, measure, mobilise

Anyone who leaves the dental practice with worry or impatience is susceptible to the promise of a quick fix. This is exactly where the detox scene sells chlorella, cilantro and capsules as a complete package right after the drill. My position on this is sober: it is not the individual remedy that decides, but the order and the timing. A sensible detox is an orderly sequence, not a reflex.

Have it removed safely

The removal with a protective protocol is done by your dentist. That is the moment when the ongoing source dries up. What you can look out for is in the checklist further up.

Let it settle

The fresh irritation and the short spike after removal need to calm down first. The kinetics data argue against mobilising actively right away. A fixed interval in weeks is not study-backed, but the logic of waiting is.

Measure whether anything can be mobilised at all

Before mobilising, it is worth asking whether and how much is even there. A DMPS challenge test can make amalgam-related burden visible. I explain how it is done and its limits in the dedicated article on it.

Mobilise in a targeted way, with monitoring

Only once it is clear that a relevant mobilisable burden is present is a strategy considered that is tailored to the findings, accompanied by mineral checks. I describe the course of a pharmacological chelation therapy separately.

That a challenge test can make amalgam-related burden visible is well studied. But what such a test does not achieve is just as important. Diagnostics provide context; they are not an automatic trigger for treatment.

DMPS challenge · Human Aposhian 1998 · Environ Health Perspect

In the DMPS challenge test, in amalgam carriers about two-thirds of the mercury subsequently excreted in the urine came from the fillings, with a clear correlation between amalgam score and excretion.

For you this means: a challenge test can make amalgam-related burden visible. That is the basis for "measure first".

Aposhian HV. 1998. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.98106s41017

Controlled clinical study · n=80 Vamnes et al. 2000 · J Dent Res

In a DMPS challenge, amalgam carriers excreted about three times more mercury than people without amalgam. But the test did not separate patients with complaints from amalgam carriers without complaints.

For you this means: an elevated challenge value shows burden but does not prove a cause for complaints. Put diagnostics in context, do not over-interpret.

Vamnes JS, Eide R, Isrenn R, et al. 2000. DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790031401

And there is another honest limit: a single challenge test reflects recent exposure and the fillings still present more than deep-seated old depots. That is important for realistic expectations, especially for people whose fillings were removed years ago.

DMPS mobilisation · Human Molin et al. 1991 · Int Arch Occup Environ Health

The mercury mobilised after DMPS reflected mainly recent exposure and current fillings, less the slow body depots or the duration of exposure.

For you this means: a test measures the current burden more than what sits deep in the tissue. That puts into perspective what a single value can say.

Molin M, Schütz A, Skerfving S, Sällsten G. 1991. DOI: 10.1007/BF00381567

A detox without mineral protection can cost more than it brings

There is one aspect that almost no one mentions in the popular detox picture. Every effective mobilisation grabs not only the target metal but can also carry off vital trace elements, above all zinc, copper and selenium. A detox that ignores this can tidy up in one place and create a deficit in another.

Why selenium in particular is so central can be explained biochemically. Even very small amounts of mercury, like those that occur in the blood shortly after amalgam work, interfere with selenium-dependent protective systems of the cell. In the lab this can be buffered.

In vitro · human cells Wataha et al. 2007 · Dent Mater

Human monocytes were exposed to mercury at concentrations briefly reachable in the blood after amalgam work. Even nanomolar amounts temporarily altered the cellular redox balance and inhibited a selenium-dependent enzyme. Selenium and N-acetylcysteine softened the effects.

For you this means: selenium and sulphur-containing protective substances appear to cushion short-term cellular mercury effects. That supports mineral monitoring during a detox.

Wataha JC, Lewis JB, McCloud VV, et al. 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.09.002

At the same time I want to take the drama out where it is appropriate. The short-term spike after a removal showed no measurable damage in a study of kidney function. That takes the panic out of it without giving up the principle of care. Both can stand side by side.

Kidney function · n=10 Sandborgh-Englund et al. 1996 · Am J Physiol

In 10 healthy people, kidney values were measured before and up to 60 days after amalgam removal. Plasma mercury rose on day 1 and fell markedly by day 60. No measurable changes in kidney function occurred.

For you this means: the short-term spike after removal showed no measurable kidney damage here. That takes the drama out of it without making mineral care superfluous.

Sandborgh-Englund G, Nygren AT, Ekstrand J, Elinder CG. 1996. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1996.271.4.R941

And what about chlorella and cilantro?

The most honest answer is also the most inconvenient for the widespread detox picture. For natural binders like chlorella and cilantro there are practically no robust human studies for mercury. What does exist are environmental and animal models, often even with other metals.

An honest appraisal of the scope

The only notable animal evidence for cilantro concerns lead, not mercury, and comes from a mouse model. A transfer to mercury detox in humans cannot be derived from that. This does not mean natural support is worthless. It means it is no substitute for diagnostics and targeted mobilisation, and is not suitable as the sole answer right after the dentist.

I discuss the mechanics and the sensible limits of natural binders separately in the article on natural heavy metal elimination. Here only the appraisal counts: weakly supported, no sure thing.

In vivo · mouse · lead (not mercury) Aga et al. 2001 · J Ethnopharmacol

Mice under lead exposure were given cilantro orally. Cilantro significantly reduced lead deposition in the bone and the nephrotoxic effect. The effect concerned lead, not mercury, and an animal model.

For you this means: for natural binders there are at most animal hints with other metals. That supports the sober appraisal, no proof for blanket chlorella or cilantro cures against mercury in humans.

Aga M, Iwaki K, Ueda Y, et al. 2001. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-8741(01)00299-9

Where the body detoxes on its own A large part of the body's own mercury handling runs via sulphur-containing molecules like glutathione. How this system works and why it is taken into account during a detox is in the article on glutathione and heavy metals. The general symptom patterns and the general mercury detox are in the article on mercury poisoning.

Special cases: pregnancy, breastfeeding and acute removal

There is one question that keeps coming up in forums and is rarely answered seriously online: what if you are pregnant or breastfeeding? Here the caution is best justified, and I phrase it as care, not as a top-down ban.

Mother-child pairs · n=82 Razagui & Haswell 2001 · Biol Trace Elem Res

Mercury and selenium were determined in the scalp hair of 82 mothers and their newborns. Amalgam work during pregnancy was associated with significantly higher mercury in the newborn, especially with removal and replacement. The selenium-to-mercury ratio was lowest in these newborns.

For you this means: during pregnancy, amalgam work, especially removals, can raise the child's mercury exposure. That is a strong argument for postponing elective procedures.

Razagui IB, Haswell SJ. 2001. DOI: 10.1385/BTER:81:1:01

In vivo sheep + human correlation Vimy et al. 1997 · Biol Trace Elem Res

In a sheep model with radioactively labelled amalgam mercury, the transfer via placenta and milk could be followed. In parallel, in 33 breastfeeding women the mercury in milk and urine correlated with the number of fillings.

For you this means: mercury from fillings can reach the placenta and breast milk. That is why, during pregnancy and breastfeeding, particular restraint applies to placing and removing it.

Vimy MJ, Hooper DE, King WW, Lorscheider FL. 1997. DOI: 10.1007/BF02785388

A clear, cautious line for special situations During pregnancy and breastfeeding, elective amalgam removal and mobilising detox are generally advised against, because the short-term mobilisation could burden the unborn child or the infant. Elective procedures can usually be postponed. For acutely necessary dental treatment, the individual case always decides, ideally in coordination between the dentist and the supervising medical care. More on the topic in the article on heavy metals in pregnancy and in children.

Two camps, one blind spot in the middle

If I have to boil the field down to a formula, then this one: both ready-made answers online miss the mark, each in its own way. And both overlook the same point in the middle.

What the common answers leave out

🦷

The reassuring side essentially says: amalgam is harmless, and if it has to go, the dentist just takes it out, done. That blanks out that the way it is removed governs the acute spike.

🌿

The detox side sells chlorella and cilantro as a complete solution right after the drill. That blanks out that these remedies are barely supported for mercury in humans and that order and measurement are what count.

The blind spot in the middle: the way it is removed and the half-life of the old burden have to be thought of together. Removed safely, measured cleanly, eliminated in a controlled way, that is the line that neither plays down nor dramatises.

The question is not "chlorella, yes or no". The question is: removed safely, measured cleanly, eliminated in a controlled way, or charging in blind.

Shukri Jarmoukli, Vivecura Berlin

And now you know why these two levers so often fall apart. The removal happens at the dentist, the detox is a medical question afterwards. Anyone who looks at both sides separately overlooks that they share a common logic: the kinetics of mercury in the body.

Common questions about removal and detox

How does a safe amalgam removal work?

A safe setting separates your mouth from the drilling dust: a rubber dam, a strong tooth-level suction, continuous water cooling and lifting the filling out in pieces rather than pulverising it. Simulator measurements suggest that water cooling plus strong suction can lower the vapour concentration in the air by roughly an order of magnitude.

How do I recognise a good protective protocol at the dentist?

Ask specifically about: a rubber dam, separate strong suction at the tooth, plenty of water cooling, lifting the filling out instead of drilling it apart. If a practice explains this of its own accord and does not just use the word safe as a slogan, that is a good sign. The removal itself is done by the dentist, not by Vivecura.

Do I really need a detox after amalgam removal?

Not automatically. When the filling is taken out, the inorganic mercury burden drops markedly according to the data, but slowly. Whether an active mobilisation beyond that makes sense depends on your individual burden. So the rule is: measure first, then decide, instead of reaching for capsules by reflex.

How long does it take for the mercury to drop after removal?

In the hours after removal, mercury in the blood first rises briefly, then falls over weeks to months. In a longitudinal study the half-life in plasma was a median of 88 days and in urine 46 days. A clear drop in excretion only showed up in one study around 100 days after removal.

Should I do a test before the detox?

It makes sense to measure first whether and how much can actually be mobilised. A DMPS challenge test can make amalgam-related burden visible. It provides context, but it is not an automatic trigger for treatment. The details of the test are in the article on the DMPS mobilisation test.

Are chlorella and cilantro useful for amalgam detox?

For natural binders like chlorella and cilantro there are practically no robust human studies for mercury. In one animal model cilantro showed an effect, but with lead, not mercury. As the sole answer right after the dentist they are weakly supported. More on this in the article on natural heavy metal elimination.

Can things get temporarily worse after amalgam removal?

Right around the removal a short mercury spike can occur, in the blood within 24 to 48 hours and in the stool around the second day. According to the data this spike is small and short-lived. That is precisely why a good protective and suction setting during removal makes sense, especially when several fillings are replaced.

Can amalgam be removed during pregnancy?

During pregnancy and breastfeeding, elective amalgam removal and mobilising detox are generally advised against. Studies suggest that amalgam work during pregnancy can increase the child's mercury exposure and that mercury reaches the placenta and breast milk. Elective procedures can usually be postponed.

How much time should pass between removal and detox?

There is no fixed, study-backed number. The kinetics argue for letting the fresh irritation settle before mobilising actively, because excretion declines over weeks to months anyway. That is plausible practical logic, not a rigid scheme, and belongs in an individual medical assessment.

Is it enough to simply take out all the fillings?

Taking them out lowers the ongoing source and, according to the data, the inorganic mercury burden over time. But the mercury deposited in tissue follows a long half-life and stays until it is either slowly excreted on its own or deliberately mobilised. Filling out is the first step, not the whole journey.

Why does a detox interfere with the mineral balance?

Every effective mobilisation binds not only the target metal but can also carry off trace elements like zinc, copper and selenium. In the lab, selenium and sulphur-containing compounds buffer short-term mercury effects. That is why a detox sensibly runs with accompanying lab work and not as a pure capsule cure.

What does an amalgam removal and the detox cost?

The cost of the dental removal itself depends on the number of teeth, the effort and the practice and is partly covered by the health insurer; your dentist clarifies that. Diagnostics and detox are usually self-pay services and vary depending on scope. A serious estimate is only possible after an initial consultation and findings, not as a blanket figure in advance.

My starting point

In practice I keep seeing people whose amalgam was removed ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, often without adequate protection, and in whom a challenge test still reveals mobilisable mercury. That is no coincidence, that is half-life mathematics.

This is exactly why I consider the simple message of both camps too short-sighted. Removed safely, measured cleanly, eliminated in a controlled way. These few words are not a promise of an outcome. They are an attitude: calm, orderly and honest about what we know and what we do not.

Read on in the heavy metals cluster

This article is one building block in a larger picture. You will find the basics on all the metals, their mechanisms and the diagnostics in the overview, and the individual deep dives in the linked articles.

⚗️

Heavy metals overview

Mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, aluminium, mechanisms and diagnostics

Pillar 🦷

Amalgam fillings

How dangerous is a filling sitting in place, and when does it even have to go

🧪

DMPS challenge test

Measure first: how amalgam-related burden can be made visible

🌿

Natural elimination

Chlorella, cilantro, wild garlic: scope and honest limits

☣️

Mercury poisoning

Recognising symptoms and the general mercury detox

💉

Chelation therapy course

How a pharmacological mobilisation actually proceeds

Shukri Jarmoukli

Physician, Integrative Medicine · Vivecura Berlin

Skalitzer Straße 137, 10999 Berlin

Sources

Warwick R, O'Connor A, Lamey B. Mercury vapour exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2013;8(1):27. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6673-8-27 [In vitro, simulator/room air]
Berglund A, Molin M. Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal of all amalgam restorations: the effect of using rubber dams. Dent Mater. 1997;13(5):297-304. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80099-1 [Cohort, human, n=28]
Sandborgh-Englund G, Elinder CG, Langworth S, Schütz A, Ekstrand J. Mercury in biological fluids after amalgam removal. J Dent Res. 1998;77(4):615-24. DOI: 10.1177/00220345980770041501 [Cohort, human, longitudinal, n=12]
Halbach S, Vogt S, Köhler W, et al. Blood and urine mercury levels in adult amalgam patients of a randomized controlled trial. Environ Res. 2007;107(1):69-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2007.07.005 [RCT, n=82]
Kremers L, Halbach S, Willruth H, et al. Effect of rubber dam on mercury exposure during amalgam removal. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999;107(3):202-7. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1999.eos1070307.x [Cohort, human, n=20]
Halbach S, Welzl G, Kremers L, et al. Steady-state transfer and depletion kinetics of mercury from amalgam fillings. Sci Total Environ. 2000;259(1-3):13-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0048-9697(00)00545-3 [Cohort, human, n=29]
Björkman L, Sandborgh-Englund G, Ekstrand J. Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam fillings. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997;144(1):156-62. DOI: 10.1006/taap.1997.8128 [Cohort, human, n=10]
Halbach S, Kremers L, Willruth H, et al. Systemic transfer of mercury from amalgam fillings before and after cessation of emission. Environ Res. 1998;77(2):115-23. DOI: 10.1006/enrs.1998.3829 [Cohort, human, n=29]
Aposhian HV. Mobilization of mercury and arsenic in humans by sodium 2,3-dimercapto-1-propane sulfonate (DMPS). Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106 Suppl 4:1017-25. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.98106s41017 [Cohort, human, DMPS]
Vamnes JS, Eide R, Isrenn R, Höl PJ, Gjerdet NR. Diagnostic value of a chelating agent in patients with symptoms allegedly caused by amalgam fillings. J Dent Res. 2000;79(3):868-74. DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790031401 [Cohort, clinical, n=80]
Molin M, Schütz A, Skerfving S, Sällsten G. Mobilized mercury in subjects with varying exposure to elemental mercury vapour. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1991;63(3):187-92. DOI: 10.1007/BF00381567 [Cohort, human, DMPS]
Sandborgh-Englund G, Nygren AT, Ekstrand J, Elinder CG. No evidence of renal toxicity from amalgam fillings. Am J Physiol. 1996;271(4 Pt 2):R941-5. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1996.271.4.R941 [Cohort, human, n=10]
Razagui IB, Haswell SJ. Mercury and selenium concentrations in maternal and neonatal scalp hair: relationship to amalgam-based dental treatment during pregnancy. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2001;81(1):1-19. DOI: 10.1385/BTER:81:1:01 [Cohort, human, n=82 mother-child]
Vimy MJ, Hooper DE, King WW, Lorscheider FL. Mercury from maternal silver tooth fillings in sheep and human breast milk. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1997;56(2):143-52. DOI: 10.1007/BF02785388 [In vivo, sheep + human]
Wataha JC, Lewis JB, McCloud VV, et al. Effect of mercury(II) on Nrf2, thioredoxin reductase-1 and thioredoxin-1 in human monocytes. Dent Mater. 2007;24(6):765-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.09.002 [In vitro, human cells]
Ekstrand J, Björkman L, Edlund C, Sandborgh-Englund G. Toxicological aspects on the release and systemic uptake of mercury from dental amalgam. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106(2 Pt 2):678-86. DOI: 10.1046/j.0909-8836.1998.eos10602ii03.x [Review, human]
Aga M, Iwaki K, Ueda Y, et al. Preventive effect of Coriandrum sativum on localized lead deposition in ICR mice. J Ethnopharmacol. 2001;77(2-3):203-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-8741(01)00299-9 [In vivo, mouse, lead]

Transparency on the evidence: the core statements of this article, removal as a separate exposure window, the protective protocol effect, the long half-life and the caution in pregnancy, rest on controlled human and clinical studies. Weakly supported is only the part on natural binders like chlorella and cilantro: here there are no robust human studies for mercury, and the corresponding statements remain deliberately cautious. This article does not replace medical or dental advice or individual diagnostics.