Author |
Message |
LMG1 #1 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
I am a mom, (not a scientist) with a decision to make. My 6 year old daughter has 2 cavities! What to fill them with? I didn't anticipate the volumes of articles, web sites, faqs pro and con amalgam. As I get set to do some reading, I wonder if there is a real answer or if this is just another of those "modern life" dilemmas.
|
Wed, 02 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Niels Asbec #2 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
> I am a mom, (not a scientist) with a decision to make. My 6 year old > daughter has 2 cavities! What to fill them with? I didn't anticipate the > volumes of articles, web sites, faqs pro and con amalgam. As I get set to > do some reading, I wonder if there is a real answer or if this is just > another of those "modern life" dilemmas.
Small occlusal cavities can successfully be filled with Fujii 9 glass ionomer (GI). The rest of the occlusal surface can be fissure sealed with Fujii 9 as well to prevent further decay. Chemically curing glass ionomers has only a low toxicity and low allergenic potential. Some time in the distant future she may need a sandwich of composite on top of the GI filling. Niels Asbech, Denmark.
|
Wed, 02 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Steven Fawks DD #3 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
> >I am a mom, (not a scientist) with a decision to make. My 6 year old > >daughter has 2 cavities! What to fill them with? I didn't anticipate the > >volumes of articles, web sites, faqs pro and con amalgam. As I get set to > >do some reading, I wonder if there is a real answer or if this is just > >another of those "modern life" dilemmas.
> If you want to poison your daughter, let the dentist put amalgam > in her cavities. > Don't let him put amalgam on her teeths. Pay a little more for > another material like composites. > Amalgam seem to last longer, but.. is it worth our health?... > Amalgam IS a poison. It contain 50% mercury which is extremely toxic. > It goes to the brain, and every part of the body. It accumulate. > Rick
The main problem with amalgam is the amount of healthy tooth structure that is removed to place one. Composites (if you find someone who really knows what they are doing) need only to have the decay removed to successfully restore the tooth. Air abrasion would also be my choice for removal of the affected tooth structure (no vibration and micro-cracks started in the enamel) if they are not large cavities. Glass ionomer will not wear well over time by itself, and I can see no advantage to a two step filling process. SWF DDS
|
Wed, 02 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
r.. #4 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
>I am a mom, (not a scientist) with a decision to make. My 6 year old >daughter has 2 cavities! What to fill them with? I didn't anticipate the >volumes of articles, web sites, faqs pro and con amalgam. As I get set to >do some reading, I wonder if there is a real answer or if this is just >another of those "modern life" dilemmas.
If you want to poison your daughter, let the dentist put amalgam in her cavities. Don't let him put amalgam on her teeths. Pay a little more for another material like composites. Amalgam seem to last longer, but.. is it worth our health?... Amalgam IS a poison. It contain 50% mercury which is extremely toxic. It goes to the brain, and every part of the body. It accumulate. Rick
|
Thu, 03 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
pc.. #5 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
>I am a mom, (not a scientist) with a decision to make. My 6 year old >daughter has 2 cavities! What to fill them with? I didn't anticipate the >volumes of articles, web sites, faqs pro and con amalgam. As I get set to >do some reading, I wonder if there is a real answer or if this is just >another of those "modern life" dilemmas.
Dont place amalgam - there is a lot of evidence now indicating that amalgam is hazzard. Compsites or porcelein are all much safer.. cheers ade To learn more about the Amalgam safety issue (or lack of) visit:- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol This provides a wide range of information, and also links to other important sources - The Amalgam FAQ, The BBC Panorama program summary, the IAOMT homepage, Dr Vimys page, etc.
|
Thu, 03 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
MICHAEL FERR #6 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
>I am a mom, (not a scientist) with a decision to make. My 6 year old >daughter has 2 cavities! What to fill them with? I didn't anticipate the >volumes of articles, web sites, faqs pro and con amalgam. As I get set to >do some reading, I wonder if there is a real answer or if this is just >another of those "modern life" dilemmas.
Apparently you missed my POST a couple of months ago, in which I posted my letter to CONSUMER REPORTS magazine, FDA, etc., and ended with the following summary: EFFECTS OF SWALLOWING A LARGE AMALGAM FILLING (as experienced by the author while a high school senior in 1982): FIRST EFFECTS (minutes/hours later): - exaggerated intensity of heartbeat/audibility of pulse (intermittent) - ringing in ears/hearing difficulty (intermittent) - metallic taste - excessive salivation/colored saliva (light black tint) - belching with metallic taste (intermittent) LATER EFFECTS (days later): - chronic headache - insomnia - inability to recall basic information (familiar things don't "click") - breathing spasms (intermittent) - vomiting (intermittent) - mild diarrhea (intermittent) - loss of appetite - urinary retention LATER EFFECTS (weeks/months later): - darkened gums and lining of mouth - dazed look/glassy eyes - disorientation/loss of intellect - spaciness/obssessive, uncontrollable, repetitive thoughts - isolation/inability to communicate - speech, visual, hearing impairment - sluggishness in walking - slight tremors (intermittent) - chills - anorexia (from 140 to 95 lbs.) LONG-TERM EFFECTS (years later -- MOSTLY subside in 12-15 years): - sensitivities (food and chemical) - insomnia, sleeping late, then awakening fatigued - loss of confidence/inappropriate responses in social situations The ADA has managed to keep secret their witches'-brew recipe for poisonous amalgam for so long that it took me two years just to find it out for myself. And it was another four years (1988-9) before I finally sorted the Truth from the ADA propaganda and ran out to have my amalgam fillings replaced with non-poisonous ones. Swallowing amalgam made me so grievously ill for so much of the time (at one time or another, I exhibited most of the 102 effects of mercury listed in CHRONIC MERCURY TOXICITY: A GUIDE FOR THE DOCTOR/PATIENT, by Queen), that it took me 14 years just to get a B.S. degree, and I was unable to hold a steady job for the entire time. And speaking of B.S., that's exactly how to describe any claims of amalgam "safety": amalgam is deadly poisonous, and completely unsuitable for use in the general population. Any dental "professional" who tells you otherwise is simply unable to grasp the concept that poison does *not* belong in a person's mouth. PERIOD. Just to let you know that I'm not putting you on, trying to sell you some- thing, or trying to scare you, either go to a good university library or use an on-line catalogue such as the OCLC and discover the same disturbing references that I did: (i) Proof that mercury vapor escapes from "silver" tooth fillings: J.E. Abraham, et. al., "The Effect of Dental Amalgam Restorations on {*filter*} Mercury Levels", J. DENT. RES., 63:71-73 (1984). D. Brune and D.M. Evje, "Man's Mercury Loading from a Dental Amalgam", THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 44:51-63 (1985). M.J. Vimy and F.L. Lorscheider, "Serial Measurements of Intra-{*filter*} Air Mercury: Estimation of Daily Dose from Dental Amalgam", J. DENT. RES., 64(8):1072-1075 (August, 1985). (ii) Proof that dentists have been permanently harmed from handling "silver" tooth fillings: ARCH. NEUROL., 33:788-790 (Nov., 1976) -- dentist suffers senility, emotional instability, depression, and loss of direction sense in lower extremities after having a history of handling amalgam CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS (2/8/71) -- a dental assistant is found to have grievously high amounts of mercury in her kidneys. (The results were found upon autopsy). Although the author, a British chemist, tries to downplay this disturbing finding, the dental assistant's body mercury levels were clearly high enough to have been the cause of her untimely death (iii) Proof that patients have been permanently harmed from wearing "silver" tooth fillings: Just check out the disturbing periodical titles which appear near the beginning of Huggins' strangely written book IT'S ALL IN YOUR HEAD (Huggins Diagnostic Center, 1985). Titles like "Acute Mania Attributed to Amalgam Filling", "Death From Swallowing Large Amal- gam Filling", and a dozen more disturbing titles. (Unfortunately, Huggins does not give the exact references [I did say it is a strangely written book]; however, the exact names of the period- icals did appear in a series of DAMS newsletters around 1990. Many of the Huggins articles are quite old, and date to circa 1880, when the American College of Dental Surgeons found long and hard *against* the use of amalgam. Unfortunately, the ADA "won" the debate -- and the American people have lost). (iv) For your further enlightenment: http://www.***.com/ ~trufax/reports/merceff.html http://www.***.com/ ~daveq/amalgam.htm http://www.***.com/ ~bosse/MercuryPage.html http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ ~leif/AmFAQigr.htm http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ ~mapgieb http://www.***.com/ ~mapgieb/amal2.zip http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ http://www.***.com/ Sure, no dental material is completely safe: allergy to *any* alternative material is possible, and you could {*filter*}on any dental material and die. But in the case of deadly amalgam, there are many nontoxic alternatives out there (and although many of them are not as durable as amalgam, the simple fact that most dentists conveniently leave out is that some of the alternative materials *are* as durable as amalgam -- and none are as poisonous). In fact, any *competent* dentist will make use of a biocompatibility (allergy) testing service to see whether or not a dental material is suitable *before* placing it in your mouth. (And all traces of *any* unsuitable material -- not just amalgam -- can be notoriously difficult to remove, so choose your new dental material *carefully*! In 1988, I was shown a list of 120 brand names to choose from; but I suspected allergy to the new material, and in 1991-2 had to have all of them all replaced (again!) -- this time with a brand-name called CONQUEST. (N.B., This must *not* be considered an endor{*filter*}t: what is suitable for me may be completely unsuitable for you). Oh, BTW, I found out later that I wasn't allergic to the new material at all -- I was allergic to the fluoride treatments that the first dentist was using (but that's another story...) So, that's about all that *I* have to say about amalgam. If, OTOH, you see nothing wrong with exposing your six-year-old daughter to a proven poison which attaches itself to the {*filter*} cells, interferes with the functions of the glands, has potentially vicious effects upon the lungs, heart, liver, and kidneys, depresses the immune system, and acts as a poison for the nervous system and the brain, and that this is just another "'modern-life' dilemma" that your child has to live with -- well, then I guess amalgam is for you. -- MF
|
Fri, 04 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
MICHAEL FERR #7 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
>Well said! I'm having my amalgams removed beginning next month. > Ann >Ackerman, reader of the dental newsgroup
Thanks for the compliments! Before you run out and have your amalgams replaced, though, *please* be sure to find a dentist who knows how to do it properly. The second dentist which I went to had quite a few horror stories about some of his patients who had their amalgams "replaced" -- only to find by X-ray that whereas the top 50 percent of each amalgam was actually replaced, the other 50 percent of the poison was still there. (During my second round of amalgam replacement in '91-2, right in the middle of a session the dentist ran out to fetch his assistant to show her how much amalgam was still under one of my "replacement" fillings). According to my dentist, the so-called "dentists" at shopping malls are the worst offenders in this regard, and are to be avoided at all costs (although the first dentist who bungled my work was a "standard" dentist in private practice). Also be sure that the dentist who does the amalgam removal makes use of a {*filter*} dam (basically, he/she puts the equivalent of a {*filter*} shower cap in your mouth before drilling). Maybe you've already read the story of Earl Talevich on this ng, who suffered the same "terrible neural" symptoms that I did after one of his large amalgam fillings was drilled out. A large amalgam filling weighs 800 to 1200 mg according to Huggins, and therefore contains 400 to 600 mg of poisonous mercury. Swallowing only 100 mg of Hg is sufficient to cause the signs of acute mercury poisoning (unusual timidity, decline of intellect), and 500 mg of Hg is always fatal unless immediate treatment is given (THE NUTRITION ALMANAC, McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.125). These figures translate into 200 mg of amalgam (or 1/4 of a large filling) and 1000 mg of amalgam, respectively. These figures should be kept carefully in mind during every second of the drilling process. (I estimate that the large amalgam filling which I swallowed in 1982 was very nearly 1000 mg). Finally, be a patient patient. My amalgams were replaced only two at a time on each visit, and I had 23 of them. Each visit was scheduled five to six weeks apart, so the total replacement took close to a year and a half. (Plus, remember that I had this done *twice*). And *please* remember my previous POST about the importance of using a suitable replacement material. Using an amalgam replacement material to which you are definitely allergic could put you in a much worse situation than before! I'm pretty sure that one of the websites that I posted is a list of professional referrals, who are obviously much more qualified than I am where your health is concerned. Good luck! -- MF
|
Sat, 05 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Bruce E. Howel #8 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
> >I am a mom, (not a scientist) with a decision to make. My 6 year old > >daughter has 2 cavities! What to fill them with? I didn't anticipate the > >volumes of articles, web sites, faqs pro and con amalgam. As I get set to > >do some reading, I wonder if there is a real answer or if this is just > >another of those "modern life" dilemmas.
> If you want to poison your daughter, let the dentist put amalgam > in her cavities. > Don't let him put amalgam on her teeths. Pay a little more for > another material like composites. > Amalgam seem to last longer, but.. is it worth our health?... > Amalgam IS a poison. It contain 50% mercury which is extremely toxic. > It goes to the brain, and every part of the body. It accumulate. > Rick
See the Dec 16, 1996 issue of the ADA News - After reviewing all the research and articles on the subject, and after hearing from medical physiologists, toxicologists, medical doctors, medical chemists, biochemists, biologists and dental material specialists from both sides, a judge in California ruled that there is no evidence that mercury is a serious health threat. Bruce Howell
|
Sat, 05 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Dave #9 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote: > See the Dec 16, 1996 issue of the ADA News - After reviewing all the > research and articles on the subject, and after hearing from medical > physiologists, toxicologists, medical doctors, medical chemists, > biochemists, biologists and dental material specialists from both sides,
Blind faith in the ADA and the dental community doing the right thing regarding the amalgam issue is probably the major reason why people are still being poisoned with mercury by their dentists. Dentists are not required to inform their patient of the mercury content of the filling material and if they recommend a different material for health reasons, they are blasted by the ADA for beind 'unethical'. The statements the ADA makes are based on faulty reasoning, invalid research techniques, and outright lies. I have heard many statements from dentists that are often just plain wrong. Its time the ADA and the dental industry owned up to its mistake and voluntarilly phased mercury amalgam fillings out. Don't get amalgam fillings. If your dentist claims that the mercury in your fillings is safe, its time for a new dentist. Apparantly, the only 'safe' place to store mercury is in your mouth. At least this is what the ADA wants you to believe. More often than not, if you see an article about the problems with mercury in a dental journal or web site, they are more concerned about the dentists exposure than the patients. Quote: > a judge in California ruled that there is no evidence that mercury is a > serious health threat.
Okay, then why is there now a law in California that forces dentists to warn about the mercury content of dental amalgam.
|
Sun, 06 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Steven Fawks DD #10 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
> > See the Dec 16, 1996 issue of the ADA News - After reviewing all the > > research and articles on the subject, and after hearing from medical > > physiologists, toxicologists, medical doctors, medical chemists, > > biochemists, biologists and dental material specialists from both sides, > Blind faith in the ADA and the dental community doing the right thing > regarding the amalgam issue is probably the major reason why people are > still being poisoned with mercury by their dentists. > Dentists are not required to inform their patient of the mercury content of > the filling material and if they recommend a different material for health > reasons, they are blasted by the ADA for beind 'unethical'. > The statements the ADA makes are based on faulty reasoning, invalid > research techniques, and outright lies. I have heard many statements from > dentists that are often just plain wrong. Its time the ADA and the dental > industry owned up to its mistake and voluntarilly phased mercury amalgam > fillings out. > Don't get amalgam fillings. If your dentist claims that the mercury in your > fillings is safe, its time for a new dentist. Apparantly, the only 'safe' > place to store mercury is in your mouth. At least this is what the ADA > wants you to believe. More often than not, if you see an article about the > problems with mercury in a dental journal or web site, they are more > concerned about the dentists exposure than the patients. > > a judge in California ruled that there is no evidence that mercury is a > > serious health threat. > Okay, then why is there now a law in California that forces dentists to > warn about the mercury content of dental amalgam.
Dentists are able to offer alternative filling materials without fear of reprisal by the ADA or state dental boards. It is unethical to remove sound amalgams on the supposed "health benefits". It is not unethical to choose other filling materials for new work. Amalgam may be slowly on the way out due to its limitations as a filling material. It does not bond well to tooth structure, and it requires that much more healthy tooth structure be removed for most fillings than composites. If the decay is so large that a composite cannot be used as a permanent restoration, the tooth probably needs an inlay or crown anyway. (IMHO) SWF DDS
|
Sun, 06 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Bruce E. Howel #11 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote:
> > See the Dec 16, 1996 issue of the ADA News - After reviewing all the > > research and articles on the subject, and after hearing from medical > > physiologists, toxicologists, medical doctors, medical chemists, > > biochemists, biologists and dental material specialists from both sides, > Blind faith in the ADA and the dental community doing the right thing > regarding the amalgam issue is probably the major reason why people are > still being poisoned with mercury by their dentists. > Dentists are not required to inform their patient of the mercury content of > the filling material and if they recommend a different material for health > reasons, they are blasted by the ADA for beind 'unethical'. > The statements the ADA makes are based on faulty reasoning, invalid > research techniques, and outright lies. I have heard many statements from > dentists that are often just plain wrong. Its time the ADA and the dental > industry owned up to its mistake and voluntarilly phased mercury amalgam > fillings out. > Don't get amalgam fillings. If your dentist claims that the mercury in your > fillings is safe, its time for a new dentist. Apparantly, the only 'safe' > place to store mercury is in your mouth. At least this is what the ADA > wants you to believe. More often than not, if you see an article about the > problems with mercury in a dental journal or web site, they are more > concerned about the dentists exposure than the patients. > > a judge in California ruled that there is no evidence that mercury is a > > serious health threat. > Okay, then why is there now a law in California that forces dentists to > warn about the mercury content of dental amalgam.
The word FORCE is a key word. I believe that that law was reversed or at least weakened.
|
Sun, 06 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
Dave #12 / 12
|
 amalgam debate
Quote: > The word FORCE is a key word. I believe that that law was reversed or > at least weakened.
Please get the facts before you post. It only reduces the integrity of this newsgroups for people to post information like this which can be easily verified.
Dec. 1993 The State of California passes new legislation. All Californian dentists who use Dental Amalgam must post the following warning clearly in their dental surgeries. All Amalgam manufacturers must display this warning on all amalgam sold in California: Warning This Office uses amalgam filling materials which contain and expose you to Mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Please consult your dentist for more information. << If there is anything newer on the subject, I couldn't find it after a 30 minutes of searching of the web. If there is something newer that contradicts this, then I apologize.
|
Tue, 08 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|