removing mercury fillings

lola_run

I have one mercury filling that I'd like to get removed and replaced with a non-mercury one. Is this easy for a dentist to do? Are there any dangers?

eth0_

It's not difficult and there's little danger if it's done properly - constant suction around the tooth when the amalgam is being removed. I had 4 replaced last year with no problems.

Big_G

If 'mercury' exposure is the reason why you want to get fillings changed, mercury exposure from fillings is at its highest (two orders of magnitude higher than normal) when fillings are being placed or removed. Just thought you might like to know.

dlofnep

make sure the dentist has the fluid sucking thingy connected when he or she is doing it. you're right about getting it removed. just make sure it's done right, otherwise you get much higher exposure as already stated

Supercell

Tbh, why on earth would people want to submit themselves to the needle and drill just on the off chance that a mercury filling thats already in might do them harm in the future, I honestly think you're crazy!!

I am very dentist phobic though and have unfortunately spent too much time in the last year at one and jebus no way in gods green earth is he redoing prefectly fine fillings just because there is a tiny chance they might cause me problems down the line.

I've mercury fillings in there 20 years now and zero ill effects, i really think some people are over reacting - if I had to get a brand new filling I'd request white probably (mainly for asthetic reasons), but if its already in..well, let sleeping dogs lay I say.

dlofnep

as a fibromyalgia sufferer, ive seen countless peoples post on forums that after being ill for 10 years, their symptoms went away within weeks of removing mercury fillings..

Big_G

The current opinion on amalgam is that the scientific evidence is of insufficient quality and quantity both for and against the safety of amalgam. It has been used for over 150 years in dentistry with no obvious ill effects (that is 100's of billions of amalgams placed). That is not to say that some people may be more susceptible to the miniscule amount of vapour given off by amalgams (which is less than is taken in from normal diet daily).

imokyrok

I've been doing a lot of research into this issue and opinion seems to be gradually shifting towards amalgam being a serious problem for a small section of mercury sensitive people. Some countries have banned amalgam entirely (Sweden) and the WHO has suggested concern. I'm thinking of having mine replaced as I also have fibromyalgia. I'm concerned about the expense though. This link has a couple of mercury free dentists in Ireland on it : http://www.mercuryfreedentistry.org.uk/page.php?domain_name=mercuryfreedentistry.org.uk&viewpage=West%26Ireland

davo10

imokyrok, there has never been any study which showed a conclusive link between amalgam and and diseases of the nervous system/cancer etc. Many have alluded to a possible link but you must remember that amalgam has been in use all over the world for over a hundred years and we are not all mad. I am a dentist and my most recent filling on one of my back teeth was an amalgam. The banning of amalgam in Sweden had a lot to do with the environmentalist movement, they and the government were concerned that the amalgam/mercury from the thousands of dental clinics was not been disposed of safely, along of course with their concerns regarding the health of patients

sudzs

Did anyone see terry Pratchet having his amalgam fillngs removed on BBC2 the other night, "Terry Pratchet, Living with Alzheimers"?

He had all sorts of covers and protection around his face, as did the dental team, during the whole process.

I had an amalgam replaced around 2 years ago in Ireland and the only protection I was given was those big safety glasses! :eek:

There was bits of mercury filling hopping around my mouth as she drilled away at it and I was spittiing bits out for the rest of the day. Can't say there was much suction being done either. Just the occasional call to the nurse who was making up several cups of mouth rinse at the time, to come over.

Am in the UK now and having 4 replaced in the near future. They will be using the same high protection as Terry Pratchet had.

And have to say it is a whole new experience seeing a dentist here.

imokyrok

davo10 wrote: »

imokyrok, there has never been any study which showed a conclusive link between amalgam and and diseases of the nervous system/cancer etc. Many have alluded to a possible link but you must remember that amalgam has been in use all over the world for over a hundred years and we are not all mad. I am a dentist and my most recent filling on one of my back teeth was an amalgam. The banning of amalgam in Sweden had a lot to do with the environmentalist movement, they and the government were concerned that the amalgam/mercury from the thousands of dental clinics was not been disposed of safely, along of course with their concerns regarding the health of patients

I guess it depends on your definition of "conclusive". I recall the tobacco industry said the same about cigarettes for many, many years. I recently read of a class action case regarding amalgam in the US, so who knows what the future holds. I did say in my post that there were concerns for a small section of mercury sensitive individuals - rather than all patients. However if amalgam has an influence on these conditions which evidence suggests is possible how are we supposed to know in advance who will be effected?

In September 2006, an advisory panel to the FDA reviewed FDA’s research and heard presentations from the public about the benefits and risks of mercury and amalgam. They don't appear to have concluded it is safe in all instances. You can read the summary of the panel meeting at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/meetings/090606-summary.html

Heres a link listing quite a few relevant papers btw
http://www.toxicteeth.org/RemovalResults.cfm

In any case I've just discovered a doctor who will test for mercury toxicity so hopefully I'll be able to cross it of my list one way or another.

davo10

You are quite right, studies may someday prove amalgam causes health problems but as of yet they haven't. But they may also show that all medicaments pose health risks. The amalgams used now have extremely low levels of mercury compared to those used in the past.

Also, regarding the US lawsuit, i recently read an article where a judge sued a dry cleaners for $60 million because they lost his favourite trousers. I wouldn't use their legal system as gravitas in a debate.

Incidently, on post above the postee is concerned regarding removal of amalgam, by the time a filling is removed most of mercury has gone anyway, no need to be worried. By the way, if you request rubber dam for your fillings, they will take longer and involve more materials so don't be surprised if they are more expensive.

Big_G

In fact the FDA's panel found that there was insufficient evidence for the safety of amalgam. That is not the same as saying that amalgam is unsafe. They also concluded that there is poor evidence for the possible adverse effects of amalgam. No direct link has ever been established between amalgam and adverse health effects.

Evidence of fybromyalgia sufferers having a reduction in symptoms after having amalgam removed is an example of what is called 'anectdotal' and is rated of low quality amongst scientists.

There are several German studies regarding reduction of symptoms of various diseases with removal of amalgam but they were are retrospective and not prospective studies afaik.

As far as class action law suits, come on really. Class action law suits have been on the books since the 90's and before with regard to the safety of amalgam. I believe there was a '60 minutes' (a current affairs program) special on amalgam in the early 90's about the safety of amalgam. There was a sudden spike in class action lawsuits, none of which (afaik) were successful.

If you don't want amalgam, maybe ask for gold. White fillings have chemistry which can mimic human sex hormones (don't mean to scare you). Gold is inert, but it'll cost ya.

sudzs

White fillings have chemistry which can mimic human sex hormones

Which ones exactly, do you know??! Male? Female??

EileenG

Harry Torney in Glenageary had a mercury-free practise and does safe removal of mercury fillings. I had all mine replaced, and do feel better now. Also, my breath is a lot better.

I used to buy the offical "silver fillings are safe" line, until I broke a filling when I was pregnant. Seeing three different dentists jump back in horror at the thought of touching a mercury filling on a pregnant woman convinced me that they weren't as safe as all that.

Gu3rr1lla

FDA are a bunch of crooks anyway. You might want to look up Monsanto and their influence on the FDA. Look up aspartame at least.

Big_G

Female I believe. Check this website http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Good link Big_G.

Gu3rr1lla you are like mel gibson in that Conspiracy Theory movie. Remember the truth is out there, oh wait there is a recession so no one gives a crap anymore.

Gu3rr1lla

If you dont want to research what i said, fine. Doesnt bother me:rolleyes:

edit: that was a good movie by the way:P

EileenG

Did anyone watch the Channel 4 programme on mercury fillings that was on last week? Very interesting. One of the head honchos of the British Dental Association (sorry, was washing up when it was on, missed his name) was interviewed and ended up saying "La la la la la" as an answer to questions about the dangers of mercury.

Terry Prachett talked about getting his mercury fillings out, and asked the dentist if he could have the fillings, with the plan of making a pair of really expensive cufflinks out of them. His dentist said NO, they were now toxic waste and nobody was allowed to touch them.

The programme made the point that mercury is now banned in several countries with more doing it all the time, and was banned in UK for pregnant women.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

If you don't want to research what i said, fine. Doesn'T bother me:rolleyes:

Why would I need to research it, I think i have read enough actual scientific evidence, articles, consensus statements and text books over the years to make up my own mind without resorting to Internet speculation and pseudo scientific banter.

Look amalgam fillings are safe. I have them in my own head. In a recient study of what dentists have in their back teeth, 80% had amalgam...why would that be? If you want them replaced fine, you will get a 15% placebo effect and a nice high blood mercury level. If I wanted I could go mercury free and make twice as much money cause the white fillings cost more, but I don't because the amalgam is best in some cases. Its your own choice, you can choose what you want its your right, Its not some vast conspiracy,

Also with the recession you do all realise that the white fillings need to be replaced 2-3 times as much and cost more to placed each time.

Agreed good movie.

Gu3rr1lla

EileenG wrote: »

Did anyone watch the Channel 4 programme on mercury fillings that was on last week? Very interesting. One of the head honchos of the British Dental Association (sorry, was washing up when it was on, missed his name) was interviewed and ended up saying "La la la la la" as an answer to questions about the dangers of mercury.

lol that was very funny! talking about conspiracy theorists :rolleyes:

here it that part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq8E84PgP3g

Here is the full programme: http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Video/default.html?ViewType=5&Filter=36010

kerry4sam

I, the genius that I am, managed to crack a piece of my only mercury filling ... Kind of a blessing in disguise though as I wanted it removed with a while but kept putting it off.

Went to the dentist today and he removed it (The suction never stopped! Their was one point when a piece got caught in my breath though). He re-filled the tooth with a white filler and now I'm just waiting for the feeling to fully return to my mouth/gum

Was charged 120euros which I thought was reasonable considering the work that was involved.

Maureenk

Needed to visit the dentist last week and had a test done on my Mercury Fillings - was surprised at the reading - will have them out asap. For information on the subject visit www.mercuryfreedentistry.eu; they are based in Westport and I found their approach to me and the work I needed done/doing excellent.

imokyrok

Maureenk wrote: »

Needed to visit the dentist last week and had a test done on my Mercury Fillings - was surprised at the reading - will have them out asap. For information on the subject visit www.mercuryfreedentistry.eu; they are based in Westport and I found their approach to me and the work I needed done/doing excellent.

Can you tell us more Maureen. What kind of a test and what was the result? Does the dentist there use dams when replacing the fillings to prevent more toxicity? Also what sort of cost are we talking about?

Gu3rr1lla

From 80 to 200 euro. Some charge different amounts. There are a few mercury free dentists around the country, in westport, dublin (glenageary), killkenny, armagh, tyrone.

marco_polo

Maureenk wrote: »

Needed to visit the dentist last week and had a test done on my Mercury Fillings - was surprised at the reading - will have them out asap. For information on the subject visit www.mercuryfreedentistry.eu; they are based in Westport and I found their approach to me and the work I needed done/doing excellent.

http://www.skeptically.org/quackery/id23.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

Gu3rr1lla

marco_polo wrote: »

http://www.skeptically.org/quackery/id23.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

Someone should set up a website about these quacks :rolleyes:

marco_polo

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Someone should set up a website about these quacks :rolleyes:

Ah I was sure you wouldn't let a little thing like a lack of scientific evidence dent your confidence in your pet conspiracy theory.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-37614.html

Here is a synopsis of an independent review of over 300 scientific research papers on the topic by independent scientists, turning up no evidence of a causal link between amalgams and human heath problems.

Gu3rr1lla

marco_polo wrote: »

Ah I was sure you wouldn't let a little thing like a lack of scientific evidence dent your confidence in your pet conspiracy theory.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-37614.html

Here is a synopsis of an independent review of over 300 scientific research papers on the topic by independent scientists, turning up no evidence of a causal link between amalgams and human heath problems.

What conspiracy theory?

I checked out your link..what is the point in posting it if the actual report isnt there?

marco_polo

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

What conspiracy theory?

I checked out your link..what is the point in posting it if the actual report isnt there?

Did you read it?

It was so you can view the main conclusions of the report without having to buy it?

No corrupt FDA influence to blame here.

The executive summary is free btw.


http://www.lsro.org/articles/amalgam_report.html

zynaps

marco_polo wrote: »

Here is a synopsis of an independent review of over 300 scientific research papers on the topic by independent scientists, turning up no evidence of a causal link between amalgams and human heath problems.

Perhaps there isn't an accepted causal link yet, but there are some quite strong correlations (e.g. see Wikipedia article on the dental amalgam controversy), which while perhaps not scientifically acceptable proof, are enough of a hint for me to prefer not having mercury in my teeth.

80% of dentists can carry on putting them in their own teeth, but the potential implications for health are far, far more significant for me than the cost of replacing composite fillings more often. Money is money, but mercury building up in your brain is... well... mercury building up in your brain.

Capt'n Midnight

Abril Salmon Porter wrote:

Also with the recession you do all realise that the white fillings need to be replaced 2-3 times as much and cost more to placed each time.

Why does this sound like the CFC's getting banned when the patents ran out so there was a whole new industry in replacements ?

Big_G

zynaps wrote: »

Perhaps there isn't an accepted causal link yet, but there are some quite strong correlations (e.g. see Wikipedia article on the dental amalgam controversy), which while perhaps not scientifically acceptable proof, are enough of a hint for me to prefer not having mercury in my teeth.

80% of dentists can carry on putting them in their own teeth, but the potential implications for health are far, far more significant for me than the cost of replacing composite fillings more often. Money is money, but mercury building up in your brain is... well... mercury building up in your brain.

And as has been stated previously, composite contains chemistry that are suspected to mimic human hormones. But again, the dose makes the poison. If you want to get something inert, get gold, unless you have an allergy.

zynaps

Big_G wrote: »

And as has been stated previously, composite contains chemistry that are suspected to mimic human hormones.

Indeed, but human hormones occur naturally within the human body in reasonably large amounts, unlike mercury. I would expect that the damage caused by long-term exposure to mercury is more significant than the side-effects of (possibly) hormones.
Besides, it's certain that amalgam fillings contain and leak some amount of mercury over the long term. It's not certain at all that composite fillings contain substances which mimic human hormones, nor how much, nor what rate the body is exposed to them. In fact there is very little information available about this at all - practically nothing on Wikipedia except a mention that one material used in some composites (BPA) might contribute to breast cancer.

I think the known toxicity of mercury (and personally, its toxicity towards brain function) is more significant than the current theories on composite side-effects. But to each their own.

Big_G

zynaps wrote: »

Indeed, but human hormones occur naturally within the human body in reasonably large amounts, unlike mercury. I would expect that the damage caused by long-term exposure to mercury is more significant than the side-effects of (possibly) hormones.
Besides, it's certain that amalgam fillings contain and leak some amount of mercury over the long term. It's not certain at all that composite fillings contain substances which mimic human hormones, nor how much, nor what rate the body is exposed to them. In fact there is very little information available about this at all - practically nothing on Wikipedia except a mention that one material used in some composites (BPA) might contribute to breast cancer.

I think the known toxicity of mercury (and personally, its toxicity towards brain function) is more significant than the current theories on composite side-effects. But to each their own.

I used to be a significant contributor to the articles on Wikipedia until I tired of fighting certain political agendas regarding the use of particular restorative materials in dentistry. Wikipedia is a poor source of information on this topic.

The most significant recent finding was the special advisory panel for the food and drug administration in the USA. What they found was that amalgam was an under studied material. There was not enough evidence for or against the possible adverse effects of amalgam.

Essentially no causal link has ever been established between amalgam and any disease.

As has been stated previously, in toxicology, the dose makes the poison. The amount of mercury absorbed by the body from amalgam is a fraction of dietary and environmental intake. The body has a capacity to excrete mercury also.

One study on the cognitive abilities of dentists does not an evidence base make either.

To each their own indeed. If I was choosing a restorative material it would be gold, but then again I only have a degree in dental science and several years of experience of dental practice.

zynaps

Big_G wrote: »

I used to be a significant contributor to the articles on Wikipedia until I tired of fighting certain political agendas regarding the use of particular restorative materials in dentistry. Wikipedia is a poor source of information on this topic.

Fair point; I've seen quite a few articles tarnished by some over-excited editor who decides that they have authority to yay-or-nay every change made to particular articles, and seem to immediately notice and revert changes they disagree with.

Big_G wrote:

To each their own indeed. If I was choosing a restorative material it would be gold, but then again I only have a degree in dental science and several years of experience of dental practice.

I didn't mean to be dismissive of your viewpoint, just to acknowledge that it sometimes comes down to a choice between alternatives where there is insufficient (in both quantity and quality) evidence either way, so you have to make a decision based on poor knowledge (even more so in my case with no background in dentistry whatsoever).
But yes, gold sounds like the superior option. If I had the money I'd go this route, although the idea of having glittering gold bits here and there on my teeth (bad brushing habits, laziness and access to fizzy drinks in my teens) is a bit unsettling, plus it conducts heat which could be uncomfortable? :eek:

Quacksalber

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Someone should set up a website about these quacks :rolleyes:

Someone did - thou I wouldn't be calling either site objective:
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/


So I must sleep now, however I am keen to discuss this topic again.
First I must ask both our resident dentist and our dental scientist - precisely how much training in toxicology in general, and mercury toxicology specifically did you both receive during your undergraduate and postgraduate trainings ? A course for a semester, several lectures as part of another course, an hour long lecture, or even jsut a few slides for ten minutes ? Please be specific.

Quacksalber

Abril Salmon Porter wrote: »

Why would I need to research it, I think i have read enough actual scientific evidence, articles, consensus statements and text books over the years to make up my own mind without resorting to Internet speculation and pseudo scientific banter.
.............

Right.
So YOU are aware then of the following facts we must presume? :
1. None of the studies done on amalgam safety adequately consider mercury from amalgam as only one of several sources of mercury. This rubbishes the results instantly.
2. None of the studies done on amalgam safety take consideration of various nutritional factors which affect mercury poisoning such as thiol intake, selenium levels, zinc levels and others.
3. None of the studies done on amalgam safety take account for the influence of various genes which can affect mercury toxicity such as BNDF, CPOX4, COMT & others.
4. The half-life of inorganic mercury in the brain is on the order of years - none of the studies done on amalgam safety consider this fact. This is important as this leads to bioaccumulation of mercury in the brain overtime. The consequences of this are currently unknown

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Thanks Quacksalber (good name by the way). I dont really feel like getting into a debate with you over this even if you insist in PM'ing me about it. As I have previously stated I feel that it is a personal choice for each person about what is put into their bodies. I am sure with your superior scientific knowledge your can form your own opinions about this matter without my input. I am here to moderate and am trying these day to get less involved in the debates.

PLEASE REMEMBER THE QUESTION IS NOT IS MERCURY SAFE ITS IS DENTAL AMALGAM SAFE.


I feel that the replacement of perfectly serviceable restorations under the guise of amalgam toxicity is a marketing scam. I however think that if a restoration needs to be replaced for good clinical reasons which as decay then its up to each patient to decide on balance what is best for them.

Pro Amalgam: Cost effective, long lasting, strong in compression and OK in sheer. Over time the amalgam gets less leakage. Good contrast against tooth, so less accidental removal of good tooth on replacement.

Anti amalgam: Silver colored, does not bond to tooth on its own.

Pro composite: white color. Bonds to tooth, good in compression.

Anti composite : costly, time consuming, poor life span compared to amalgam, prone to leakage over time. Poor sheer strength. Tooth colored so more loss of real tooth during replacement.

Maybe some new evidence will come along and change my mind however for the moment I think that amalgam is a great material.

Make up your own mind

Quacksalber

Hi fitzgeme
I only pm'ed you to draw your attention to the thread since I wasn't sure you had seen it.

Ok so you don't want to get into debate since you are trying to be more moderator. Fair enough I'll let most points go. However one thing that can't be let go.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ABOUT WHETHER AMALGAM IS SAFE - IT IS ABSOLUTELY ABOUT WHETHER MERCURY IS SAFE - THIS IS ONE AND THE SAME QUESTION. This is why I asked what your tox training is. This is a fundamental problem with the whole debate. If one has a good knowledge about mercury toxicity in general it is self-evident that you cannot seperate amalgam toxicity from mercury toxicity. I apologise if you think this is a personal criticism - it isn't. Your profession has overstepped its bounds on the issue with amalgam largely avoiding the usual regulatroy restraints simply on the strength of dentists saying 'we've been doing it forever so it must be safe'. Facts are this: WHO 1991 stated that amalgam leaks 3 to 10 microgram on average per day. A portion of this bioaccumulates in the human brain with a very long half-life. This is in addition to, and since one can't determine later the original source of the mercury, inseperable from mercury from other sources. No-one knows the implications of this but they are unlikely to be positive.

And the reason I bring this up is because you my friend as a dentist and all your colleagues are actually ethically obliged to confront this issue. I understand why you might not want to - noone wants to think they've spent their career unintentionally poisoning people if that does eventually turn out to be the case - but worse than that is to stick your fingers in your ears, go LALALALALALA and accept the dogma handed down to you, and then later find out it was poisoning people.

I've outlined above several key points which render practially all studies on the issue meaningless, since all studies on the issue have failed to take into account these significant confounders. Therefore, logically, the safety of amalgam is UNKNOWN. However given the well established toxicity of mercury in general and the fact that amalgam is a source of mercury exposure in the body and does contribute to body stores of mercury, the precautionary principle would imply we should not be sticking it into peoples heads.

As to new evidence....well time will tell.

For the genetics stuff above I recommend you check out the following papers since much of it was discovered based on symptoms reported by practising dental workers in combination with genetic analysis. I'm sure you know that as a dentist you are exposed to more mercury than your patients - its does have detectable consequences:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18686203?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16343843?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16301096?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19296409?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Quacksalber wrote: »

Hi fitzgeme
because you my friend as a dentist and all your colleagues are actually ethically obliged to confront this issue.

And you my friend as a internet forum user with 4 posts have no responcibilities at all which must be nice, you can say what you want and we must listen, while I as a professional know nothing about this and am deluded. All those papers are a load of horse **** by the way. "Self reported mood" state etc, real good science there. I dont have the full text but if the abstracts are anything to go by, reading them would be worse for my health than a bullet in the head.

I and many other here give free advice to people hear who want it, if you want to make some points about a topic you feel strongly about do it else where.

For you a ban and I am locking this thread.

This is about dental advice this forum, not for the old nugget of amalgam. I have already stated on m
numberious occasions that is is your choice, My own opinions are just that, all be them well informed. Its you decision, what more do you want.