to remove silver/mercury fillings?

Miacc

I was hoping I could get some dental advice on removing silver (metal) fillings for white replacements - from either qualified dentists or those who have had this procedure done.

i am considering doing this because of the mercury content of the silver fillings but see from previous posts that ther are pros and cons.
e.g. white fillings not as long lasting and can leak? is this true - can anyone inform me more specifically what we're talking about here.
AND, mercury exposure when getting filings removed...

im trying to weigh up pros and cons right now to decide, been thinking about this for a while ...

is there any research into the effect of mercury fillings on health etc...

Im uninformed as it stands. thanks! any useful advice appreciated!

Miacc

im also wondering about ball park figures for having silver fillings removed and replaced with white ones, if anyone can help me. thanks again

dustbabe

Miacc wrote: »

im also wondering about ball park figures for having silver fillings removed and replaced with white ones, if anyone can help me. thanks again

Hi, my friends cousin is a dentist in canada. He has done a lot of research on mercury filings and they are bad for you. Basically mercury leaches out into your system over time and this can affect your health. this is the same priniciple that the new resurfacing hips give off metal ions that sit in your body. you end up with 1000 the normal amounts of magnesium and aluminium in your system. Aluminium may be related to alzheimers. these special hips are not recommended for young women you need hip replacemnt and who may get pregnant as the ions cross the placenta and can cause birth defects to the baby. I will find out his name and you can google him yourself! have ha a quick google and you will see the FDA in the states says they cause harm to babies.I hope to get my own mercury fillings removed soon

dvpower

Miacc wrote: »

I was hoping I could get some dental advice on removing silver (metal) fillings for white replacements - from either qualified dentists or those who have had this procedure done.

i am considering doing this because of the mercury content of the silver fillings but see from previous posts that ther are pros and cons.
e.g. white fillings not as long lasting and can leak? is this true - can anyone inform me more specifically what we're talking about here.
AND, mercury exposure when getting filings removed...

im trying to weigh up pros and cons right now to decide, been thinking about this for a while ...

is there any research into the effect of mercury fillings on health etc...

Im uninformed as it stands. thanks! any useful advice appreciated!

Although there is some controversy around amalgam (mercury) fillings, they are not considered unsafe by most countries (including Ireland).

VHI wrote:

Amalgam fillings have been used for more than 100 years, and they continue to have the trust of dentists around the world. The American Dental Association, the Academy of General Dentistry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, The World Health Organization, The Food and Drug Administration, The Alzheimer's Association, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society all agree that these fillings are safe.

http://www2.vhi.ie/topic/fillings#s11

Seems to me that having existing amalgam fillings removed is unnecessary.

dvpower

dustbabe wrote: »

... the FDA in the states says they cause harm to babies.

I'm not sure that the FDA said that amalgam fillings cause harm to babies. Do you have source on that claim?

Indeed the FDA specifically do not recommend that amalgam filling be removed

FDA wrote:

FDA does not recommend that you have your amalgam fillings removed.
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html

marco_polo

dustbabe wrote: »

Hi, my friends cousin is a dentist in canada. He has done a lot of research on mercury filings and they are bad for you. Basically mercury leaches out into your system over time and this can affect your health. this is the same priniciple that the new resurfacing hips give off metal ions that sit in your body. you end up with 1000 the normal amounts of magnesium and aluminium in your system. Aluminium may be related to alzheimers. these special hips are not recommended for young women you need hip replacemnt and who may get pregnant as the ions cross the placenta and can cause birth defects to the baby. I will find out his name and you can google him yourself! have ha a quick google and you will see the FDA in the states says they cause harm to babies.I hope to get my own mercury fillings removed soon

Really, has he published a scientific paper about it? This independent review of hundreds of papers in the current scientific literature seems to suggest otherwise

http://www.lsro.org/presentation_files/amalgam/amalgam_execsum.pdf

There no reliable scientifc evidence that suggests mercury fillings are in any way harmful to your health.

With regard to the pregancy issue there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that it is harmful to unborn childen but, as an advisory, mercury fillings like the many other things that are not recommened for pregnant women on the ground of precaution. The FDA categorically does not state that it causes birth defects.

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html

Please get you facts straight before scaringmongering, and encouraging people to get potentially hundreds of euros worth of dental treatment they do not need.

Gu3rr1lla

There has been a lot of research done into it by government and independent bodies who keep contradicting each other. Some say its safe the others say its unsafe. Silver fillings do contain mercury and that is a concern. I'd say this is more down to a personal choice.

When getting them removed make sure you get a dentist who uses the right protocols because the mercury vapor leaked while removal is more damaging than a life long period of mercury filling leakage. The dentist should use a rubber dam and a high suction evacuator and the dentist shouldnt drill into the filling but drill around it. There should be no problems if he does it like this.

If your local dentist doesnt agree to remove them there are several mercury free dentists around the country. Replacing amalgam fillings with white fillings cost between 80e - 240e.

marco_polo

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

There has been a lot of research done into it by government and independent bodies who keep contradicting each other. Some say its safe the others say its unsafe.

(Quotations are from posted summary report)

I am unaware of any government, independent body or dental association who hold the position that amalgam fillings are unsafe for humans.

The only thing proven side effect of mercury fillings is that a very small percentage of people have allergic reactions.

Silver fillings do contain mercury and that is a concern.

Yes and current research suggests that at the levels of mercury ingested from fillings does not add signifigantly to the level of mercury we already get from our environment via food etc. And there is no evidence to suggest that those levels are harmeful to humans.


"Thus, on the basis of a number of occupational exposure studies, there appears to be a substantial margin of safety between Hg0 exposure of persons with dental amalgam restorations and occupational Hg0 exposures that produce slight alterations in sensitive biochemical indices."

"Individuals with dental amalgam-attributed complaints had neither elevated HgU nor increased prevalence of hypersensitivity to dental amalgam or mercury when compared with controls."

"In total, these studies failed to support the hypothesis that Hg0
exposure, at the levels released by dental amalgam, interferes with human
neuropsychological function or acts as an etiologic factor for the neurodegenerative diseases - Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease."

I'd say this is more down to a personal choice.

I agree but idealy it should be based on facts rather than scaremongering. Dental experts generally advise against unnesscessary dental work as removal of a filling is not completely without risk.

Of course it is ultimately down to personal choice, but people should be informed accurately of the issues at hand.

When getting them removed make sure you get a dentist who uses the right protocols because the mercury vapor leaked while removal is more damaging than a life long period of mercury filling leakage. The dentist should use a rubber dam and a high suction evacuator and the dentist shouldnt drill into the filling but drill around it. There should be no problems if he does it like this.

Wrong again, while it is right that precautions should be taken during the removal, the levels of mercury ingested during filling removal is a little higher than normal but still nowhere remotely near a harmful level. You make the mistake ( deliberate perhaps) of substuting sensible caution for something more sinister.

"Bruxism and dental amalgam placement and removal appear
to have less impact on exposure levels than the use of nicotine chewing gum."

If your local dentist doesnt agree to remove them there are several mercury free dentists around the country. Replacing amalgam fillings with white fillings cost between 80e - 240e.

It is true that alot of good dentists will not agree to perform a unnesscessary replacement of a perfectly good restoration.

Gu3rr1lla

Wow you're very good at repeating! LOL!

I'll accept that mercury fillings are safe if you can provide proof of your claim. And how do you know that report is true?

marco_polo

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Wow you're very good at repeating! LOL!

I'll accept that mercury fillings are safe if you can provide proof of your claim. And how do you know that report is true?

It is very difficult to prove something does nothing or is 100% safe, it is possible that this computer screen will blow up in my face any second now but I am still typing.

It has been shown time and time again that all of the illness allegedly attributed to Mercury Fillings have no scientific merit. All you are have is your unfounded personal conviction that they must be harmful. Do you avoid vaccines too on the same basis?

Gu3rr1lla

marco_polo wrote: »

It has been shown time and time again that all of the illness allegedly attributed to Mercury Fillings have no scientific merit.

Where has this been shown?

All you are have is your unfounded personal conviction

And you have yours :rolleyes:

marco_polo

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Where has this been shown?



And you have yours :rolleyes:

This would be a perfect opportunity for you to win the debate with a proof by counterexample.

A reputable paper from the scientific literature that shows a probable link between amalgam fillings and any of the illnesses often attributed to it by holistic practioners would suffice.

Gu3rr1lla

marco_polo wrote: »

This would be a perfect opportunity for you to win the debate with a proof by counterexample.

I have no desire to debate i just want to learn

Miacc

Thanks everyone for your good information - id have some concerns about the removal so that information about what i should look for when thinking about this was really useful - high suction devices etc! ... personally i'll probably err on the side of caution - Im a sceptic about science, esp. when studies are inconclusive, which seems to be the case. thanks for the replies and references to literature ;)

BryanL

Miacc,

if you need references they are easy enough to get. Most mercury exposure is to vapour when fillings are removed.

The people most exposed to mercury are dentists and nurses and there are no incedence of any disease higher in this group (apart from back ache) than the general population.

The benefits from replacing mercury filling are

aesthetics for the patient
financial for the dentist

and the health benefits from tha placebo effect( which is a real effect)

Bryan

marco_polo

Miacc wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your good information - id have some concerns about the removal so that information about what i should look for when thinking about this was really useful - high suction devices etc! ... personally i'll probably err on the side of caution - Im a sceptic about science, esp. when studies are inconclusive, which seems to be the case. thanks for the replies and references to literature ;)

They are your teeth and it is your perogative to do whatever you wish with them.

However if I may pick you up on one point. I do not understand why people are so sceptical of science, when generally they do not hold people who make wild claims with no basis in evidence up to the same level of scrutiny.
It is impossible to prove that anything is 100% safe.

No studies support the claims of adverse health effects made about mercury fillings thus far, which does not strike me as inconclusive in any way. (And I have my fair share of mercury filling ).

To further this point, no drug, vaccine or antibiotic in use can give proof of 100% safety, all that that the clinical trial data can show is that there is no evidence of any harmful effects. This is not a perfect system and of course you could point to the case of drugs which have subsequently been shown to have harmful effects, however without exception these cases are identified and the flawed product is withdrawn.

When a drug is discovered to be harmful the trend can be very obvious even from from studing from a meer few hundred or thousands of cases. There are literally billions of Mercury fillings in the world, in use for over 100 years you would expect if there were harmful effects they would been readily identified long ago.

aare

I wouldn't be too impressed by the general health scare stories, but when the fillings touch the gums, composite, and glass ionimer, are far less likely to cause irritation than amalgam.

I have recently had huge amalgam fillings replaced and the improvement in gum health is dramatic...but admittedly I am someone who reacts to metals and can only use titanium navel rings for more than an hour or two...so it seems a no-brainer that my gums would not like amalgam.

There is also usually a far better bond between composite and the fabric of the tooth, which, though it is not, in itself, perhaps as strong as amalgam, creates a different type of strength.

The sudden absence of any metallic taste in my mouth is nice too.

It is a personal choice, the only thing to beware of is that removing existing fillings is bound to also reduce the remaining tooth fabric.

zynaps

Some good information on both sides of the debate here - I've moved slightly closer to the middle of the fence than I was initially.

BryanL wrote: »

The people most exposed to mercury are dentists and nurses and there are no incedence of any disease higher in this group (apart from back ache) than the general population.

However I don't think this statement is entirely correct. See references in the wikipedia article on the subject:

A study examining the health effects of mercury on dentists in the UK published in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Journal[56] concluded that 180 dentists had on average 4 times the urinary mercury excretion levels of 180 people in a control group. Dentists were significantly more likely than control subjects to have had disorders of the kidney or memory disturbance.

but

No direct correlation between urinary mercury levels and the disability, however, was found. Urine testing is unreliable for showing lifetime mercury accumulation rather than recent exposure.

And

Dentists in several large-scale studies performed multiple cognitive and behavioural tests and, compared to a normal population, lagged behind in many areas. In one study this included 14% worse scores in memory, co-ordination, motor speed and concentration.[54] The study did not demonstrate any link between mercury exposure and these lagging scores, however. A newer study[55] also found a link between cognitive impairment (including mood) and dental work, even though "exposure among these dental personnel are not much greater than exposures to the general population through the dental amalgam in their fillings" as shown by urinary studies. Twelve of 13 symptoms were correlated with greater mercury exposure.

So there's some evidence for possible occupational hazard for dentists, albeit not conclusively proven that it has anything to do with mercury exposure.

Capt'n Midnight

dustbabe wrote:

Aluminium may be related to alzheimers.

In a similar way that global warming may be related to the number of pirates.

Most of the mechanisms that link aluminium with alzheimers have not show correlations, like tea drinking etc.

srachel

The truth about silver amalgam fillings is that they contain 50% mercury that is ... Homemade Teeth Whitening Solutions

http://www.ezinearticles.com/?Dental-Fillings-Silver-Mercury-Amalgam&id=2162645

Miacc wrote: »

I was hoping I could get some dental advice on removing silver (metal) fillings for white replacements - from either qualified dentists or those who have had this procedure done.

i am considering doing this because of the mercury content of the silver fillings but see from previous posts that ther are pros and cons.
e.g. white fillings not as long lasting and can leak? is this true - can anyone inform me more specifically what we're talking about here.
AND, mercury exposure when getting filings removed...

im trying to weigh up pros and cons right now to decide, been thinking about this for a while ...

is there any research into the effect of mercury fillings on health etc...

Im uninformed as it stands. thanks! any useful advice appreciated!

Joni23

There is a total ban in Norway, Sweden, and Austria for mercury fillings. And in Germany and the US they carry mandatory health warnings.

Nuff said as far as im concerned. Cant really see myself waiting for the Irish (i.e copy what the UK does) government to find conclusive evidence.

Anyone know any experienced dentists?

davo10

FDA considers amalgam safe, this link was taken off their site today.
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DentalProducts/DentalAmalgam/ucm171094.htm.
Where is the "health warning" you are posting about.

Big_G

Wow, necro post of the week. Look into the reasons why silver amalgam was banned in those countries, its not what you think. It's for environmental reasons, actually. They didn't want mercury from old restorations in buried bodies leaching into the water supply, in much higher concentrations than would be experienced by an individual with fillings in their mouth. We're not getting into this again, by the way, thread closed.