## 1 Introduction  
Although composite materials retain their top spot in the dental filling category, the former champion was amalgam fillings [1]. In recent years, the use of dental amalgam has markedly declined worldwide due to growing concerns over its safety, primarily associated with its mercury content [2, 3]. Moreover, patients favor tooth-colored restorations over the metallic hue of amalgam due to their superior aesthetic appeal [4]. Dental amalgam has been used routinely to restore teeth, especially for restorations in premolars and molars for nearly 200 years. Previously, the primary factors contributing to its preference were its long-term excellent performance, resistance to mastication, relatively low cost, and ease of manipulation and placement [1, 5, 6]. Since the 1970s, dental amalgam has provided exemplary service to patients and dentists alike. However, advancements in sensitive analytical chemistry techniques during the same period revealed that mercury is continuously released from dental amalgams and is absorbed into the body [3, 7, 8]. This revelation sparked ongoing debate about the safety of dental amalgams for both patients and dental personnel [9, 10]. Previous studies have demonstrated that mercury vapor can be released from amalgam restorations during various procedures, including insertion, trituration, condensation, carving, polishing, and removal [11; 12; 13]. Additionally, elements such as silver, copper, and zinc can be released into saliva from amalgam restorations [14]. These heavy metals have often been implicated in symptoms and diseases of unknown etiology [15]. Mercury, in particular, is a heavy metal known for its toxicity and has been associated with significant public health disasters, such as those in Iraq [16] and Minamata Bay, Japan [17]. The prevalence of amalgam as a direct restorative material has diminished over time, largely due to the increasing preference for tooth-colored composite resin restorations, which necessitate more conservative cavity preparations. Concerns persist that the structural integrity of teeth may be compromised by the extensive removal of sound tissue required to fulfill amalgam's mechanical strength and retention criteria. Furthermore, the waning reliance on amalgam is also fueled by apprehensions--both individual and environmental--regarding the potential risks associated with the elemental mercury content in these restorations [18]. In the 1830s, amalgam restorations were crafted by amalgamating silver coins with mercury prior to their placement within the cavity [19; 20]. To ensure the retention of this metallic mixture, the tooth structure was meticulously prepared before the silver-hued compound was inserted and compacted into the prepared space. The final morphology was sculpted using manual instruments before the material underwent hardening [20]. Current dental amalgam contains approximately 40-50% elemental metallic mercury by weight. The alloy powder consists of 50-60% of a blend of tin, copper, silver, zinc, palladium, and indium [18; 21; 22; 23; 24]. Although dental amalgam has been extensively utilized as a restorative material, its mercury content continues to be a subject of debate [25]. [PERSON] et al. have identified dental amalgam as one of the \"three contemporary manifestations of mercury,\" alongside methylmercury, which accumulates in fish, and ethylmercury, commonly used as a preservative in vaccines [26]. The total amount of mercury contained in dental amalgam restorations placed in individuals' mouths is estimated to range between 75 and 100 tons [27]. It is well established that amalgam fillings emit low levels of mercury vapor, with the release rate being influenced by multiple factors, including the dimensions of the filling, bruxism, tooth brushing, food consistency, the location of the restoration, and mastication. Moreover, the age, composition, and surface area of the amalgam are additional factors influencing mercury release.