Dental amalgam controversy an increasing number of studies with larger sample sizes are being conducted. Those who are not opposed to amalgam claim that, aside from rare and localized tissue irritation, recent evidence-based research has continued to demonstrate no ill effects from the minute amounts of mercury exposure from amalgam fillings. A 2004 systematic review conducted by the Life Sciences Research Office, whose clients include the FDA and NIH, concluded that, "the current data are insufficient to support an association between mercury release from dental amalgam and the various complaints that have been attributed to this restoration material." A systematic review in 2009
Amalgam tattoo of discolored mucosa is much larger. If necessary, the diagnosis can be confirmed histologically by excisional biopsy, which excludes nevi and melanomas. If a biopsy is taken, the histopathologic appearance is: Theoretically, routine use of a dental dam during dental procedures which involve amalgam should reduce the risk of amalgam tattoo. No treatment is required since the lesion is entirely benign. Some suggest that amalgam tattoos are best surgically excised so as to ensure the lesion does not represent a melanoma. Other say that excision should only be carried out if there is any doubt over the diagnosis, and that