Established 1999 in the heart of Samford at the Samford Central Shopping Centre

Call Us Enquire Online


Holistic dentistry also referred to as biologic dentistry; is an alternative approach that focuses on the use of non-toxic restorative materials for dental work, and emphasizes the unrecognized impact that dental toxins and dental infections may have on a person's overall health. While traditional dentistry focuses only on the areas above the neck, holistic dentistry looks at the patient as a whole system and how the mouth relates to the rest of the body.


Here at Dental Distinction we specialise in safely removing amalgam fillings. We follow strict guidelines for both pre and post removal, as well as during the procedure to ensure all amalgam is removed safely and correctly so your body can begin the recovery phase.


Please continue to read this page for more information about amalgam fillings, gum disease and focal infection and the impact they all have on your overall health.










The silver fillings in your mouth are actually about 50% mercury. Dental amalgam is an alloy of Silver, Tin, Zinc and Copper combined with an equal amount of Elemental Mecury.


As there is a continuous release of mercury from dental amalgam, dentists must dispose of scrap amalgam as toxic waste following strict guidelines. (It is illegal to put it in the garbage, the sewer or the drain).




  • Mercury from amalgam fillings has been shown to cause a 50% reduction in kidney filtration after just two months in the mouth (animal studies). Kidney damage from mercury has been reported often in the literature30, 31, 32, 33, 34.
  • The most common symptoms of long-term low-level mercury poisoning are headaches and psycho-emotional disturbances. Muscle twitches and body shakes are later symptoms thus more severe.
  • Research from 1993 onwards has shown that mercury from amalgam fillings will cause an increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the gut and mouth35, 36, 37. The number of antibiotic resistant bacteria fall rapidly after the amalgams are removed.
  • Mercury from amalgams can cause a weakening in the wall of small blood vessels (micro-angiopathies) – this results in a reduction of blood supply to the tissues resulting in reduced function and/or cell death6.
  • Heart function may be affected by mercury and electrical currents from amalgam38, 39.
  • Some reports suggest that elevated cholesterol levels are related to mercury in the body. It has been noted that cholesterol levels drop after removal of amalgam fillings.
  • Although the dental associations claim that less than 1% of the population show true allergy to amalgam, the latest research41 indicates that the real figure is closer to 13%. Assuming that only half the population in Australia has amalgam fillings, this would mean that over 1,700,000 people may be sick due to an allergic reaction to these fillings. Since the medical profession as a whole do not acknowledge the dangers of amalgam, it is most likely that the majority of these people are misdiagnosed and therefore mistreated.
  • Mercury will always have a detrimental effect of the immune system. This creates an environment in the body for other diseases to develop43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.
  • Mercury binds to proteins and thus makes them look like foreign material to the cells of the immune system50, 51. Overt auto-immune diseases may then ensue.
  • There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers discussing the damaging effects that mercury has on the immune system50.
  • Mercury from amalgam may cause an increase in allergies, skin rashes and itching52, 53.
  • Mercury will bind strongly to selenium, a trace element needed for a wide variety of enzyme functions. Latest research indicates a direct relationship between reduced blood selenium levels and an increase in the rate of some types of cancer54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59.
  • Many studies indicate that selenium supplementation will help to protect from the damaging effects of mercury60, 61, 62, 63.
  • Mercury binds to haemoglobin in the blood and reduces its capacity to transport oxygen40. This may be one of the courses of chronic fatigue.
  • Mercury at levels as low as 1 part/ten million will destroy the walls of red blood cells64, 65, 43.

In May 1998 the British Government recommended that dentists not place

or remove amalgam in pregnant women.

  • Mercury from amalgam fillings will cross the placenta and concentrate in the foetus66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76.
  • Mercury from amalgam can also be transported via the breast milk and concentrate in the body of the feeding infant.
  • Breast milk increases the bioavailability of mercury to the infant77, 78.
  • Prenatal exposure to mercury may cause development defects and may cause permanent neurological damage in the unborn child69, 70.
  • Tissue levels of mercury in the foetus, newborn and infant are directly proportional to the number of amalgam fillings in the mother’s mouth79.
  • Mercury is mutagenic – it can cause single strand breaks in DNA80, 81, 82, 83, 84.
  • Female dental personnel exposed to mercury, exhibit twice the rate of miscarriage, infertility and still births as compared to the rest of the population58, 59, 12, 49.

If you are pregnant, never allow amalgam fillings to be placed in your mouth. Do

not go into a dental surgery where amalgam is used, as the mercury vapour

levels in the air may be harmful to the foetus16.

  • Electric currents, generated by the interaction of different metals in the mouth, can be measured in micro-amps. The central nervous system operates in the range on nano-amps. This is about 1,000 times less than the currents generated in the mouth. This is in the same order of magnitude as that induced in a person standing under high-tension power cables85, 86, 87.
  • Electrical currents, formed by placing gold into a mouth with amalgam fillings, will create an increase in electrical currents in the fillings, resulting in an increase in mercury release from all the fillings.
  • Placing a gold crown over an amalgam filling may cause a four-fold increase in the amount of mercury being driven through the tooth62, 44. Gold crowns, on top of amalgam, create a permanent galvanic cell. Amalgam is still the most commonly used material to build a core for a crown.

This practice is contra-indicated by the manufacturers Caulk and Ivoclar.

  • Dental fillings are an implant of materials into living tissues. Neither the United States Food and Drug Administration nor the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration have approved mixed dental amalgams as an implant material.
  • Although the dental authorities make claims about amalgam safety, they have not presented one scientific paper which indicates that this material is toxicologically safe.
  • In dental surgeries where amalgam is used, the mercury vapour levels may be so high as to be hazardous to health. Dental associations have said that if mercury from amalgam is so dangerous for the patient, than why is it that the dentists, who are exposed to far greater levels or mercury, are not sick? This claim in not substantiated by the scientific literature. In fact, dental personnel show a range of medical different from the rest of the population including:
  1. Twice the rate of glioblastomas than the rest of the population90,
  2. Reduced cognitive levels have been demonstrated91, 92, 93,
  3. Psycho-motor and psycho-emotional studies of dentists, demonstrated a severe drop on scores compared to the rest of the population94,
  4. Twice the rate of suicide of any profession group, and
  5. 20% of Canadian dentists are on permanent disability for psychological reasons9.





Clinical experience has demonstrated that people affected by mercury from dental amalgam will often enhance the benefits of amalgam removal if removal is combined with a detoxification routine prior to, during and after the amalgam removal.


Removal of amalgam fillings has been shown to substantially lower the body burden of mercury88, 89. Protocols do exist for the safer removal of dental amalgam from your mouth. Failure to follow these guidelines may result in exposure to an unacceptable level of mercury. Removing old amalgam fillings must be performed with extreme care.








amalgam before    amalgam after



Following a thorough dental examination, which allows us to chart the existing fillings and  to assess the presence of any dental and oral diseases we then carry on to perform a number of other steps before removing the Mercury from the mouth. These are;



Stage 1 - Health Assessment


Certain symptoms have been reported to be associated with mercury exposure. We work with other allied health practitioners to assess the possible link between a person’s illnesses, the condition of their mouth and their exposure to mercury from their amalgam fillings.   


Methodology may include;

Health questionnaire

Hair mineral analysis to look at the body composition of different metals and minerals.

Chelation therapy (active binding and removal of heavy metals),

Blood tests,

Saliva PH testing and

Urine PH testing

These tests give an overall profile of the health of your body. Results will give us indications as to the ways to facilitate repair and healing of body tissues and organs through diet and supplementation together with removal of infection and heavy metals from the mouth.



Stage 2 - Supplementation


A standard range of vitamins and minerals has been shown to be effective in heavy metal detoxification when taken in conjunction with amalgam removal.


Literature shows that blood chemistries can change when amalgam fillings are removed. To perform this procedure safely and effectively, specific vitamins and minerals can be used to protect the tissues and take  advantage of these changes for further detoxification.



Stage 3 - Sequencing


Deciding on the sequence of amalgam removal can vary between individuals. In most cases amalgam is removed in quadrants. This means each back section at the time. We may assess the situation depending on the electrical charge of the fillings or on any indication from a your health practitioner.


The main aim is to remove all amalgams safely and as soon as possible to eliminate the source of Mercury exposure.



Stage 4 - Amalgam Removal



Dental Rubber Dam  Oxygen Mask
All amalgam removals are performed using rubber dam isolation to prevent the inhalation of Mercury vapour through the mouth and the ingestion of debris created during the procedures. Inhalation of toxic vapors through the nose is prevented through the administration of medical oxygen through a small nose piece.
rubber dam oxygen mask
Air Filtration

All air in the surgery is constantly filtered by special devices to prevent build up of toxic gases in the dental surgeries.




Stage 5 - Follow up Dental and Health Check


In general it is recommended that a 6 monthly checkup be scheduled for a dental and health examination. In most cases we recommend that supplementation be continued for at least that period.


These stages are all discussed with our patients at a thorough consultation appointment before treatment is started. Appointment scheduling and costing are laid out fully in advance.


Amalgam removal is often thought to be very expensive. Our clinic sets these prices moderately to ensure they are within the reach of all most people.



You only get one chance to remove your amalgams in the correct way. It will best to follow the guidelines that have been trialed with success to make sure you avoid latent risks and get an optimum result.









Gum disease is now thought to contribute to a number of illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, lowe birth rates in pregnancy and possibly even cancer.


Also known as Gingivitis, this condition is generally caused by a build-up of plaque around the gum areas which surround your teeth. If your brushing and flossing technique is not satisfactory, this plaque will aggravate the gums causing them to become inflamed, red and swollen. You may also notice they bleed when you brush and floss.


Gingivitis is a reversible condition and with effective cleaning your gums may be healthy in only a couple of weeks. If you have gingivitis and you do not address the issue, it may develop into periodontitis, the most aggressive form of gum disease. This condition is associated with the potential loss of teeth and underlying bone.


To prevent gum disease, you should clean your teeth every day with a small, soft toothbrush, attend regular appointments for examinations and professional cleanings, eat a well-balanced diet and limit the frequency of sugary and acidic foods.











In ancient Greece, Hippocrates reported they could cure a person with a case of arthritis simply by extracting a tooth. 'Focal Infection Theory' (as they called it) is a dispelled theory from the early 1900's suggesting that bacteria in localized infections (typically in the mouth) could leak into other parts of the body resulting in almost any kind of disease, such as arthritis - heart disease, cancer, or mental illness.


The mouth can be a source of infection in various ways. These include:


An abscessed tooth A root canal treated tooth
Infection RCT
The dark area represents a focus of infection referred to as a "dental abscess"

This tooth has already been root treated but persistent infection has led to 

further progression of disease. This demonstrates some of the difficulty

with fully sterilising infection from root treated teeth.


Active decay in the teeth Infection within the jaw bone
Active Decay Jaw

Decay often starts from in-between teeth. From there is gets deep into the 

body of the tooth and ultimately into the blood and nerve tissue in the

center. The bacteria responsible can find a way into the body 

through this portal.

This area represents retained infection within the jaw possible sometime after a 

tooth has already been removed. This demonstrates the importance of

cleaning the infected sockets (the space where the tooth used

to reside) after an extraction.


Impacted wisdom teeth Gum disease
Wisdom Gum

The area behind the wisdom tooth shows an area where bacteria area causing 

an infection. This is often the case because it is impossible to clean

hidden areas like this one and hence infection can occur.

Gum disease is very prevalent within society and is brought about by 

plaque building up around the neck of the teeth. This can 

be prevented with good oral hygiene and 

regular visits for professional dental assessments.



The pictures above inlcude disease within both the skin and muscles of the oral cavity. Regular dental check ups are instrumental in identifying these at an early stage and providing treatment as needed. For example; any white patch should be treated with suspicion as a possible precursor to oral cancer.


It is only logical to conclude that retained and untreated infection can spread via the blood stream to other site and cause damage elsewhere.


Furthermore chronic infection creates chronic inflammation (the body's response to fight infection) which can be harmful to a person’s health.


That is why a holistic approach to dental care takes into account the health of all the oral structures.


It is important to realise that infection in the mouth is very often without a manifestation of pain. Hence individuals can be badly affected and be completely unaware of their problem.


To identify and treat any foci of infection it is necessary to perform a very thorough examination at regular intervals and then provide suitable treatment modalities.

















































  1. Health risks from exposure to mercury from crematoria. The Institute of Environmental Medicine,Karolinska Institute Report, 51M 1/92.
  2. More mercury from crematoria : Nature. 1990 Aug 16;346(6285):615.
  3. Comment on: Nature 1990 Oct 18,347(6294):623 Nature. 1991 Feb 28;349(6312).
  4. Lorscheider, F.L., Vimmy, M.J. and Summers, A.O. FASEB Journal (April 1995).
  5. Stortebecker. Mercury Poisoning From Dental Amalgam 1985.
  6. Stortebecker, P. The Lancet, May 27, 1989.
  7. Mercury Contamination in the Dental Office. NYS Dental Journal November 1979.
  8. Magnus Nylander, ICBM 1988.
  9. Svare CW et al. J. Dent. Res.(60(9):1668-1671, 1981.
  10. Ott K et. al.Dtsch. Zahnarztl Z 39(9):199-205, 1984.
  11. Vimy MJ. Lorscheider FL. J. DentRes. 64(8):1069-1071., 1985.
  12. Matts Hanson J. Orthomolecular Psychiatry Vol 12 No 3 Sept 1983.
  13. ]Langan, Fan, Hoos, JADA Vol 115 December 1987, 867.
  14. Sam Quen; Chronic Mercury Toxicity; New Hope Against an Endemic Disease.
  15. The US EPA maximum safe level is only 0.3 mcg/m3.
  16. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service recently published its Toxicological Profile for Mercury (Update) [ASDR.TP-93/10]. Nov. 1994.
  17. World Health Organisation Criteria 118 published 1991.
  18. G. Mark Richardson PhD Medical Devices Bureau, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Canada December 1995.  Later published in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Vol2 No4 709-61, 1996.
  19. Koos et al.,. Am J Obstet and Gynecol., 1976:126;390-409.
  20. Stortebecker, P. Mercury poisoning from dental amalgam through a direct nose-brain transport. The Lancet, May 27, 1989.
  21. Arvidson, B Acta Neurol Scand. 82(4):234-7. Oct 1990.
  22. Arvidson B. Muscle Nerve. 15(10):1089-1094, Oct, 1992.
  23. Aschner: Acts Pharmacol Toxical (Copenh) (1986 Nov)59(5):349-55.
  24. Retrograde Axonal Transport of Mercury in Primary Sensory Neurons Innervating the Tooth Pulp in the Rat. Neurosci Lett. 115(1):29-32. Ju 17, 1990.
  25. Neurosci Let. 115(1):29-32. Jul 17, 1990.
  27. Aposhian-HV; Maiorino-RM; Rivera-M; Bruce-DC;Dart-RC; Hurlbut-KM; Levine-Zheng-W; Fernando-Q; Carter-D;et-al J-Toxical-Clin-Toxico;. 1992; 30(4): 505-28.
  28. Godfrey M. Campbell N. J. Adv. Medicine 7(1) 1994.
  29. Boyd, N. D., H. Benediksson, M.J. Vimy, D.E. Hooper, F.L. Lorscheider. Am. J. Physiol.261 (Regulatory Intergrative Comp. Physiol.30): R1010-R1014, 1991.
  30. Nielson, J et al: “Mercuric Chloride-Induced Kidney Damage in Mice: Time Course, and Effect Dose, “J Toxicol Environ Health, 1991,34(4);469-483.
  31. Garcia JD Yang MG Belo PS Wang JH Carbon-mercury bond breakage In milk, cerebrum, liver, and kidney of rats fed methyl mercuric chloride. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med (1974 May) 146(1):190-3.
  32. Andres GA Brentijens JR Autoimmune diseases of the kidney. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med (1984 Jul)176(3).
  33. Druet E Houssin D Druet P Mercuric chloride nephritis depends on host rather than kidney strain.  Clin Immunopathol (1983 Oct)29(1):141-5.
  34. Hirszel P Michaelson JH Dodge K Yamase H Bigazzi PE Mercury induced autoimmune glomerulonephritis in inbred rats. Ll. Surv Synth  Pathol Res(1985)4(5-6):412-22.
  35. Summers AO, Wireman J., Vimy MJ., Lorscheider FI., Marcshal B., Levy Sb., Bennet S., Billard L., J. Of Anti-Microbial Agents and Chemotherapy 37[4]:825-34 April 1993.
  36. Brunker P Rother D Sedlmeier R Klein J Mattes R Altenbuchner J Mol Gen  Genet (1996 Jun 12)25l(3).
  37. Williams MV Environ Mol Mutagen (1996)27(1):30-3.
  38. Ziff S., Silver Dental Fillings – The Toxic Time Bomb, Aurora Press, New York 1984.
  39. The Missing Link – by Dr Michael F Ziff DDS & Sam Ziff.
  40. Huggins H., Its All In Your Head. 1990.
  41. An Epidemiological Study of Mercury  Sensitization. Sato, K. Kusada, Y. Zhang, Q. Yanagihara, M. Ueda, K. Morihiro, H. Ishii, Y. Mori, T. Hirai, T. Yomiyama, T; Iida, K. Allergology International, 46:201-6, 1997.
  42. JADA, Vol. 122, Aug. 1991, p. 54.
  43. Abraham J, Svare C, Frank C. J. Dent. Res. 63(1):71-73,1984.
  44. Malstrom C., Hansson M., Nylander M., Conference on Trace Elements in Health and Disease.  Stockholm May25 – 1992.
  45. Matts Hanson. ICBM conference Colorado 1988.
  46. Hal Huggins, Observations From the Metabolic Fringe. ICBM conf. Colorado 1988.
  47. Verchaeve L et al., Mutation Res., 1985:157; 221-226.
  48. Pelletier L et al., Eur. J Immun., 1985: 460 – 465.
  49. Amalgam Hazards – an assessment of research By Irwin Mandel DDS  Assoc. Dean for Research School of Dental and Oral Surgery Columbia University  New York  Published JADA Vol. 122 August 1991.
  50. Hultman P Johansson U Turley SJ Lindh U Enestrom S Pollard KM FASEB J (1994 Nov)8(14):1183-90.
  51. Stejskal VD Forsbeck M Cederbrant KE Asteman O   Mercury – specific lymphocytes: an indication of mercury allergy in man.  J Clin Immunol 1996 Jan 16 (1):31-40.
  52. Stejskal VDM, Cederbrant K, Lindvall A & Forsbeck M  Melisa – an  in vitrol tool for the study of metal allergy. Toxic in Vitro 8 (5):991 – 1000 (1994).
  53. Veron et al Amalgam Dentaires et allergies J Biol Buccale., 1986:14.
  54. Dr W. Kostler., President of the Austrian Oncology Society.  Paper presented at the World Congress on Cancer.  April 1994 Sydney Australia.
  55. Clark LC  Combs GF Jr  Turnbull BW   Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin.  JAMA (1996 Dec 25) 276 (24): 1957 – 63.
  56. Van der Brandt PA  Goldbohm RA   Veer  P   Bode P   Dorant E   Hermus RJ   Sturman F  A prospective cohort study on selenium and the risk of lung cancer.  Cancer Res (1993 Oct 15) 53 (20) 4860-5.
  57. Fleet JC  Dietary selenium repletion may reduce cancer incidence in people at high risk who l9ive in areas with low soil selenium.  Nut Rev (1997 Jul) 5 (7):277-9.
  58. Combs GF Jr  Clark LC  Turnbull BW  Reduction of cancer mortality and incidence by selenium supplementation. Med Klin (1997 Sep 15) 92 Suppl.
  59. Yu B  Wang M  Li D  The relationship between selenium and immunity in large bowel cancer.  Chung Hua Wai Ko Tsa Chih (1996 Jan) 34 (1): 50-3.
  60. Watanabe C  Udono T  Shioiri H  Satoh H  Change in the level of tissue selenium after single administration of mercuric chloride in mice.  Bull Environ Contam Toxicol (1993 Jul) 51 (1):24-9.
  61. Psarras V  Derand T  Nilner K  Effect of selenium on mercury vapour released from dental amalgams: in vitro study. Swed Dent J (1994) 18 (1-2): 15-23.
  62. Ellingsen DG  Nordhagen HP Thomassen Y  Urinary selenium excretion in workers with low exposure to mercury vapour.  J Appol Toxicol (1995 Jan-Feb) 15 (1):33-6.
  63. Lindh U  Danersund A  Lindvall A   Selenium protection against toxicity from cadmium and mecury studied at the cellular level.  Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand) (1996 Feb) 42 (1):39-48.
  64. Dr Walter J Clifford Proceedings of the First World Congress on Cancer Sydney 1984.
  65. Kuhnert P, Kuhnert B R R and Erkard P Am. J. Obstet and Gynecol., 139:209-212., 1981.
  66. EPA Mercury Health Effects Update Health Issue Assessment.  Final report 1984 EOA-600/8-84f. USEPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment Washington DC 20460.
  67. Gordon – Proceedings of Intl conference on Mercury Hazards in Dental Practice Sept. 2-4 Glasgow 1981.
  68. Lee, L.P. and Dixon Effects of Mercury on Spermatogenesis J Pharmacol Exp Thera 1975: 194(1); 171-181.
  69. Vimy MJ, Takahashi Y, Lorscheider FL  Maternal – Fetal Distribution of Mercury Released From Dental Amalgam Fillings, 1990 published in FASEB.
  70. Brodsky JB.  Occupational exposure to Mercury in dentistry and pregnancy outcome.  JADA 111 (11): 779-780., 1985.
  71. Till et al. Zahnarztl. Welt reform 1978:87; 1130-1134.
  72. Mohamed et al. J. Androl.,7 (1) :11-15., 1986.
  73. Inouye M., Murao K., Kajiwara Y., Neurobehav. Toxical Teratol. 1985:7; 227-232.
  74. Koos et al., Mercury toxicity in pregnant women, fetus and newborn infant.  Am J Obstet And Gynecol., 1976:126; 390-409.
  75. Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of Mercury toxicity.  The biochemistry of Mercury in the environment. Nriagu, J.O.Ed Amsterdam Elsevier, 503-18, 1979.
  76. Babich et al ., Environ Res., 1985:37; 253-286.
  77. Vimy, Mj; Hooper, DE; King, WW; Lorscheider, FL.,  Biological Trace Element Res., 56:143-52, 1997.
  78. Oskarsson, A; Schultz , A; Skerfving, S; Hallen, IP; Phlin, B; Arch Environ Health, 51 (3):234-51 1996.
  79. Drasch, G; Schupp, I; Holf, H; Reinke, R; Roider, G; Pediatrics, 153 (8):607-10, 1994.
  80. Hansen, Stern, A survey of metal induced mutagenicity in vitro and in vivo J Amer Coll Toxicol., 1984: 3; 381-430.
  81. Babich Devans Stotzky,  The mediation of mutagenicity and clastogenicity of heavy metals by physiochemical factors.  Environ. Res., 1985:37; 253-286.
  82. Poma K Kirsch-Volders M Susanne C Mutagenicity study on mice given mercuric chloride.  J. Appl Toxicol (1981 Dec) 1 (6); 314-6.
  83. Gebhart E Chromosome Damage In Individuals Exposed to Heavy Metals Curr Top Environ Toxicol Chem (1985)8:213-25.
  84. Ariza  ME Williams MV Mutagenesis of AS52 cells by low concentrations of lead(ll) and mercury (ll) Environ Mol Mutagen (1996) 27 (1) : 30-3.
  85. Marxkors R. DasDeutsche Zahn rztebl. 24, 53,  117 and 170, 1970.
  86. Sheppard AR and Eisenbud M New York University Press. 1977.
  87. Mareck and Hockman.. Corosion 1974:23; 1000-1006.
  88. Bergerow, J; Zander, D; Freier, I; Dunemann, L  Long-Term Mercury Excretion in Urine After Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 66 (3): 209-212, 1994.
  89. Bjorkman, L; Sandborgh-England, G; Ekstrand, J; Mercury I Saliva and  Feces After Removal of Amalgam Fillings Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 144 (1): 156-162, May 1997.
  90. Nylander et al Fourth International Symposium in Occupational Health., Como Italy Sept 1985.
  91. Joel Butler “Neuropsychological Dysfunctioning Associated with the Dental Office Environment”  Professor of Psychology at the University of North Texas.
  92. Echeverria, D., et al Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17 (2): 161-168, 1995.
  93. Gonzalez-Ramirez, D. Et al.. J Pharmacol Exp Therap 272:264-274, 1995.
  94. Skare: Scand J Work Environ Health (1990 Oct) 16 (5): 340-7.
  95. Can.. Dent 1994 Special Report.