Page 22
filling materials have become increasingly more popular. Independent of risk management decisions, a sustained reduction in the use of dental amalgam in oral health care provision is expected in several countries of the European Union, the rate of which is dependent on trends in dental education towards the increasing use of alternative materials in place of amalgam and the possible reduced availability of mercury products in general. The two major dental organizations have formulated statements on use of amalgam. The recent declaration by the World Dental Federation (FDI) at the General Assembly 2009 (www.fdiworldental.org) states that “amalgam is a safe, widely used and affordable dental filling material and currently serves the oral health needs of the majority of communities around the world, particularly those most disadvantaged and in need of dental treatment”. Further, the FDI General Assembly “…acknowledges its responsibilities with regard to mercury and dental amalgam in terms of global health and the environment”,…..”and reaffirms its commitment 6 Oral Health Programme to upholding best environmental practices with regard to dental amalgam”. The International Association for Dental Research (IADR) formulated in 2004 a policy statement (www.iadr.org) which reads: “Dental amalgam has a well-documented history of safety and efficacy in dentistry. Its advantages include ease of handling, durability, and relatively low cost. Dental amalgam has numerous indications for use, especially for restorations in stress-bearing areas. Its main disadvantages are poor aesthetics and the necessity for sound tooth structures to be removed in order for retention to be obtained”….. “Scientific evidence indicates that currently used restorative materials, including dental amalgam, cause no or very few significant side-effects”. The IADR endorses the use of best management practices for the use of amalgam restorations in dental offices”. 1.7 UNEP initiatives on mercury The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the focus within the UN for environmental issues. In 2001, the UNEP Governing Council (GC) requested the preparation of a global assessment of mercury and its compounds. At its next meeting, in 2003 GC considered the key findings of the 2002 Global Mercury Assessment and concluded that there was sufficient evidence of significant global adverse impacts from mercury and its compounds to warrant further international action to reduce risks to humans and the environment from the release of mercury and its compounds to the environment. In response to further decisions in 2005 and 2007, UNEP initiated and formalized a Global Mercury Partnership with the following objectives: § Minimization and, where possible, elimination of mercury supply considering a hierarchy of sources, and retirement of mercury from the market to environmentally sound management. § Minimization and, where feasible, elimination of unintentional mercury releases to air, water and land from anthropogenic sources. § Continued minimization and elimination of global use and demand for mercury. § Promoting the development of non-mercury technologies where suitable economically feasible alternatives do not exist. To achieve these objectives the partnership areas should also: § strengthen the capacity of developing countries and countries with economies in transition § share and exchange information 7 Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration The Global Mercury Partnership currently has seven partnership areas addressing different aspects of mercury use and release. The business plan of the mercurycontaining products partnership area, sets out its objective as:”to phase out and eventually eliminate mercury in products and to eliminate releases during manufacturing and other industrial processes via environmentally sound production, transportation, storage, and disposal procedures” (www.unep.org/ hazardoussubstances). Throughout the continuing efforts in relation to mercury, UNEP and WHO have worked jointly to consider the risks to human health