I have a filling that needs to be replaced and I would like to hear about
the advantages and disadvantages of fillings that do not contain mercury.

The filling is in a molar tooth and is rather large. I would like an
alternative material because I can taste the fillings I have now and the
taste is not pleasent.

Most dentists seem very reluctant to consider anything except the "traditional"
type filling in this case, why is this? Are the alternatives that bad?

 mak> I have a filling that needs to be replaced and I would like
 mak> to hear about the advantages and disadvantages of fillings
 mak> that do not contain mercury.

 mak> The filling is in a molar tooth and is rather large. I would
 mak> like an alternative material because I can taste the
 mak> fillings I have now and the taste is not pleasent.

You can taste them? Always?

 mak> Most dentists seem very reluctant to consider anything
 mak> except the "traditional" type filling in this case, why is
 mak> this?

Reluctant is not the right word for it. It's a matter of choices. Fact is that quality wise the traditional amalgam fillings are best. But they look terrible and contain mercury. Plastic fillings can irritate the nerve, leak formaldehyde, are more expensive. What do YOU want?

 mak> Are the alternatives that bad?

No, but there's a subtle difference: they're not that good!

Sander Davidson,
dentist,
The Netherlands.

alternative to mercury fillings:
I always provide gold crowns or porcelain fillings as alternatives