A friend of mine is in dentistry school and she is interested in knowing
what is the problem with using regular amalgam as opposed to silver
amalgam.
If anyone knows, please help us...
David

Mike

--
Michael J. Layton, D.D.S.
10 Duke St.
Truro, N.S., Canada
B2N 2A1
(902) 895-4937

: A friend of mine is in dentistry school and she is interested in knowing
: what is the problem with using regular amalgam as opposed to silver
: amalgam.
: If anyone knows, please help us...
: David

They are the same.  Most of the amalgam preparations consist of
silver, copper, tin, +/- zinc.  Some contain other metals like palladium.
Mercury is also in amalgams.  This is what all the controversy is about...
mercury toxicity.  Corrosion and excessive expansion are also problems if
moisture control is not perfect when the amalgam is placed.  The gamma 2
containing alloys are especially bad.

Dr. M.

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.

What would an alternative to metal be? Which alternative is generally
best???
--
X-no-archive:yes

: What would an alternative to metal be? Which alternative is generally
: best???

Porcelain inlays/onlays.  Gold, however, is still the material of choice
in restoring back teeth.

Dr. M.

The major component of amalgam is mercury. (up to 50% !!!)

EC

Amalgam have between 43% to 55% of MERCURY in an amalgam.

Mercury is highly TOXIC. Amalgam CAN be dangerous. My life is
an hell because of this s{*filter*}of our dental industry.

There is no single answer because of the problem of allergy:  a material
which is suitable for an acquaintance may be completely unsuitable for *you*.

The alternative material which I have is a brand name called CONQUEST.  It
reportedly is one of the most durable and least allergenic materials at
present.  But this still must not be considered an endor{*filter*}t;  any
competent dentist will make use of a biocompatibility (allergy) testing
service, which will provide a list of *hundreds* of brand names to choose
from.  (For me, 120 brand names in 1988).

Noguchi K., Shimizu M., Sairenji E., "Uranium content and 235U/238U isotopic
ratio in dental porcelain powders determined by neutron activation analysis",
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED RADIATION AND ISOTOPES, 32:56-57 (1981).

And according to Huggins, some "gold" materials contain silver, copper,
and even mercury.  Although I can see why Dr. M believes that expensive gold
is still "the material of choice in restoring (large) back teeth" -- certainly
that particular material is most ideal for the Good Doctor when it comes to
billing time...

According to Huggins, the high-copper amalgams are particularly bad (at
least in the sense that the largest percentage of persons seems to be
allergic to them).  However, he does not quote a reference.

I have a source which says that palladium causes cancer in mice, but it
does not quote a professional reference, either.  OTOH, palladium is in
the same chemical family as nickel, and in chickens Ni has been found to
produce skin pigmentation changes, leg swelling, dermatitis, and alterations
in liver function in a concentration of only 40 ppb (Nielsen and Sauberlich,
PROC. SOC. EXP. BIOL. AND MED., 134:3, July, 1970).  And another study of
cancer from water supplies suggested a link between Ni and oral/intestinal
cancer (INTERNAL MEDICINE NEWS, 2/15/72).  But there is also contradictory
evidence that Ni may be a nutrient (JAMA 214:4, 10/26/72).  Another reason
why dentists should be concerned about Ni is that it is a component of
stainless steel (braces, dentures, etc.), and skin rashes and other allergic
reactions from stainless steel jewelry are well-known.  (But the offending
component of stainless steel could also be chromium -- yet another metal for
which safety concerns are conveniently being ignored).

And you can't forget what may be the most dangerous component of amalgam:
beryllium.  On the basis of the Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 2 mcg. per
cubic foot of air over an 8-hr. period, Be is about fifty times more toxic
than Hg.  And the Public Health Service found that 9 out of 10 dental alloys
contain 1 to 2 percent Be.  Although I'm unable to find how much Be wearers
of amalgam are exposed to, dentists are exposed to 60 to 160 times the
safety level (THE NEW YORK TIMES, 4/9/74).  Since Huggins' book IT'S ALL IN
YOUR HEAD (1985) also mentions beryllium, we can only assume that this
poison is still being used in dentistry, too.

Compare all of this evidence with the laughable journal "article" title
"Biocompatibility of Metals in Dentistry" (JADA, 109(3):469-471, 1984),
which presents no research of any kind and just an editorial.  Sure is
comforting to know that we, the unsuspecting Public, are in your safe and
capable hands, Dr. M...

                                                                -- MF

Bruce Howell

Seriously, if you've quoted this correctly, it's at best a misleading
statement that may cost lives when people interpret it the way I just
did.

There is a controversy over whether mercury is a serious health threat
*to the general population*. But even here, there is no question that
there is evidence that mercury can cause Parkinson's disease,
Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, fertility problems, etc. The
difference of opinion centers on the question of how strong this
evidence is, not whether it exists.

A judge should know the difference between insufficient and
non-existent evidence. Something is very wrong here.

Not that I'm saying you can rule out effects of other metals. The
"alloy" part of amalgam, which is mostly silver, has been shown to
induce autoimmune responses in animals.

: The alternative material which I have is a brand name called CONQUEST.  It
: reportedly is one of the most durable and least allergenic materials at
: present.  But this still must not be considered an endor{*filter*}t;  any
: competent dentist will make use of a biocompatibility (allergy) testing
: service, which will provide a list of *hundreds* of brand names to choose
: from.  (For me, 120 brand names in 1988).

: Noguchi K., Shimizu M., Sairenji E., "Uranium content and 235U/238U isotopic
: ratio in dental porcelain powders determined by neutron activation analysis",
: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED RADIATION AND ISOTOPES, 32:56-57 (1981).

: And according to Huggins, some "gold" materials contain silver, copper,
: and even mercury.  Although I can see why Dr. M believes that expensive gold
: is still "the material of choice in restoring (large) back teeth" -- certainly
: that particular material is most ideal for the Good Doctor when it comes to
: billing time...

: All of the controversy may be about the mercury in amalgam, Dr. M., but DPF
: is correct to point out that there are other metallic components which should
: be of just as much concern:

: According to Huggins, the high-copper amalgams are particularly bad (at
: least in the sense that the largest percentage of persons seems to be
: allergic to them).  However, he does not quote a reference.

: I have a source which says that palladium causes cancer in mice, but it
: does not quote a professional reference, either.  OTOH, palladium is in
: the same chemical family as nickel, and in chickens Ni has been found to
: produce skin pigmentation changes, leg swelling, dermatitis, and alterations
: in liver function in a concentration of only 40 ppb (Nielsen and Sauberlich,
: PROC. SOC. EXP. BIOL. AND MED., 134:3, July, 1970).  And another study of
: cancer from water supplies suggested a link between Ni and oral/intestinal
: cancer (INTERNAL MEDICINE NEWS, 2/15/72).  But there is also contradictory
: evidence that Ni may be a nutrient (JAMA 214:4, 10/26/72).  Another reason
: why dentists should be concerned about Ni is that it is a component of
: stainless steel (braces, dentures, etc.), and skin rashes and other allergic
: reactions from stainless steel jewelry are well-known.  (But the offending
: component of stainless steel could also be chromium -- yet another metal for
: which safety concerns are conveniently being ignored).

: And you can't forget what may be the most dangerous component of amalgam:
: beryllium.  On the basis of the Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 2 mcg. per
: cubic foot of air over an 8-hr. period, Be is about fifty times more toxic
: than Hg.  And the Public Health Service found that 9 out of 10 dental alloys
: contain 1 to 2 percent Be.  Although I'm unable to find how much Be wearers
: of amalgam are exposed to, dentists are exposed to 60 to 160 times the
: safety level (THE NEW YORK TIMES, 4/9/74).  Since Huggins' book IT'S ALL IN
: YOUR HEAD (1985) also mentions beryllium, we can only assume that this
: poison is still being used in dentistry, too.

: Compare all of this evidence with the laughable journal "article" title
: "Biocompatibility of Metals in Dentistry" (JADA, 109(3):469-471, 1984),
: which presents no research of any kind and just an editorial.  Sure is
: comforting to know that we, the unsuspecting Public, are in your safe and
: capable hands, Dr. M...

:                                                                 -- MF

--
Hoo, hoo, hoooooo......
On a dentist bashing spree, aren't we?!?!?  So, just what is your point,
here, buddy?  Are you implying that I should lose my license just because
of the materials that I may use and recommend for restoring teeth?!?!  I
hardly think so!  I am fully aware of the claims stated above. That
is why patients should be informed about the options available, their
benefits and risks, etc...  The patient's should have the say in what is
placed into their bodies.  Every therapeutic material has it's benefits
and risks.  These factors must be weighed against each other in deciding
what material to use... Simple, isn't it?  Let it be known to the world
that I am not an advocate of mercury, beryllium, and nickel.  I happen to
choose my dental materials with great care, thank you.  No dental
restorative can match the biocompatability of natural tooth material.  I
am not claiming to be God, nor am I claiming to know it all... nor should
you!  I am a human being trying to do the best that I can, for the public.
I think I'm doing a pretty good job.

I do agree that many dentists out there are not as objective about
choosing dental materials as they should be.  Too many are mechanically
oriented, rather than biologically oriented.  

I have a snake oil cure for baldness, senile dementia, constipation and
ingrown toe nails.  Wanna buy some?  =b

Dr. M.

Bruce Howell