Resin-based dental restorative materials contain allergenic methacrylate monomers, which may be released into saliva after restorative treatment. Monomers from resin-based composite materials have been demonstrated in saliva in vitro; however, studies analyzing saliva after restorative therapy are scarce. The aim of this study was to quantify methacrylate monomers in saliva after treatment with a resin-based composite filling material. Saliva was collected from 10 patients at four start points--before treatment, and 10 min, 24 h, and 7 d after treatment--and analysed by combined chromatography/mass spectrometry. The monomers bisphenol-A diglycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) were detected and quantified in the samples collected shortly (10 min) after treatment. The amounts detected ranged from 0.028 to 9.65 μg ml(-1) for Bis-GMA, from 0.015 to 0.19 μg ml(-1) for HEMA, and from 0.004 to 1.2 μg ml(-1) for UDMA. Triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) was detected in four of the samples. Ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA) was not detected. Monomers were not detected in saliva samples collected before treatment, or 24 h or 7 d after treatment, with the exception of one sample, 24 h after treatment, in which HEMA was detected. In conclusion, monomers from the investigated resin-based composite and adhesive system were present in saliva shortly after treatment. One week after treatment, no monomers could be detected in patients' saliva samples.

SUMMARY The aim of the present study was to investigate whether removal of all amalgam fillings was associated with long-term changes in health complaints in a group of patients who attributed subjective health complaints to amalgam fillings. Patients previously examined at the Norwegian Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit were included in the study and assigned to a treatment group (n = 20) and a reference group (n = 20). Participants in the treatment group had all amalgam fillings replaced with other restorative materials. Follow-ups took place 3 months, 1 and 3 years after removal of all amalgam fillings. There was no intervention in the reference group. Subjective health complaints were measured by numeric rating scales in both groups. Analysis of covariance was used to compare changes in health complaints over time in the two groups. In the treatment group, there were significant reductions in intra-oral and general health complaints from inclusion into study to the 3-year follow-up. In the reference group, changes in the same period were not significant. Comparisons between the groups showed that reductions in intra-oral and general health complaints in the treatment group were significantly different from the changes in the reference group. The mechanisms behind this remain to be identified. Reduced exposure to dental amalgam, patientcentred treatment and follow-ups, and elimination of worry are factors that may have influenced the results.

The inter-individual variation of intensities of health complaints was considerable and the reduction of health complaints varied for the different complaints. Several factors may be of importance for the observed reduction of complaint intensity.

Removal of amalgam restorations was followed by a long term reduction of general health complaints, which was associated with mercury concentration in urine before amalgam removal. Additional studies are needed to confirm the potential mechanisms for the observed reduction.