Filling removal

samson09

Hi

I have a few old fillings that I want removed and replaced with something that wont leach mercury into me until its time for dentures! Has anyone ever had this done or know of a good biological dentist who specialises in doing it?

Cheers

Big_G

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

That is all.

samson09

Big_G wrote: »

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

That is all.

I've done my own research thank you very much. And I happen to know several people who have had an immediate improvement in their health after having their old fillings removed. That guy from quackwatch is a quack himself and a proven liar.

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Samson09 please know that most dentists will not agree with removing perfectly good fillings for these unproven reasons. The greatest ammount of mercury vapour you can get is when these fillings are removed. Composite fillings are the alternative, and although non metalic they are not as strong or durable as alamgam. Consider ceramic inlays, onlays or crowns as an alternative for big silver fillings. These options are more expensive as they are indirect (made in a lab and cemented in your mouth).

It is your mouth and you are entitled to do whatever you wish. But I would rather this thread did not decend into yet another anit-amalgam discussion. This has been done to death hear before. Lets stick to the OP's origional question for a reccomendation.

Big_G

samson09 wrote: »

I've done my own research thank you very much. And I happen to know several people who have had an immediate improvement in their health after having their old fillings removed. That guy from quackwatch is a quack himself and a proven liar.

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

Have you indeed? Well show us the studies you've published in reputable peer reviewed journals? No? Anecdotes is all you have? That's what I thought.

Big_G

Fitzgeme, it's hard to stick to the OP's question because I don't know if there is such a thing as a "good biological" dentist. Anyway, these practitioners can be found using google. I think there is one in Sligo.

BryanL

The greatest amount of mercury is released as vapour when replacing amalgams. Any risk amalgam fillings pose is when they are replaced.
A recent program on BBC, showed a "biological dentist" replacing amalgams, he was wearing a huge gas mask as was his nurse and the camera crew but he hadn't even place a rubber dam on the patient.
I'm happy to replace amalgams with more aesthetic restorations but to say i was doing it for health reasons would not be truthful. I've also stopped stocking , snake oil.
Bryan

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Every since I stopped stocking snake oil my bad back has improved greatly
Big_G, we both know there is no winning this arguement. The dental profession are required to provide randomised controlled trials to prove amalgam safety (which they have done) but the antiamalgam concern only have to have a friend whoes runny nose improved after having amalgam removed to disprove it.

Regardless certain people object to dental amalgam - true.
There are composites which although inferior in some circumstances are more aesthetic and non metalic (except most ceramics which contain lithum, aluminium and other metals but they are white so thats ok). - True.
These composites are more expensive and time consuming to place - True.
These composites have to be replaced more often - true
There are health scares with composites also - true
Some people with chronic illnesses are looking to blame something and for a cure - understandable.

Its an emotive issue, with a lot of "biological dentists" (as opposied to the dentists that work on robots?) whip up and exaggerate for personal gains. I dont know will it ever be resolved. I still use amalgam and have it in my own mouth. I use composites also when requested or for aesthetics. and always at the front of the mouth.

Big_G

It's true, but it bothers me when this emotive issue is manipulated by pseudoscience to take advantage of the less knowledgable.

The only question that should be asked about the safety of amalgam is "Is there an acceptable limit for mercury intake by humans?" This question has been answered by many published studies. In medical toxicology, the dose makes the poison. Enough water being taken in will poison a person.

samson09

Fair enough guys and gals, you don't agree with what I'm doing and that's ok. I'll look elsewhere, maybe I'll "google" that guy in Sligo! Take it easy folks.

georgieporgy

samson09 wrote: »

Fair enough guys and gals, you don't agree with what I'm doing and that's ok. I'll look elsewhere, maybe I'll "google" that guy in Sligo! Take it easy folks.

I haven't placed an amalgam filling since 1992. I think a good composite (white) filling will last as long as a good amalgam filling. I use composite simply because I think it's better than amalgam and it certainly looks better. Most of my patients request white fillings. All of this has nothing to do with being scared of mercury. If someone asks me to replace an ugly black filling with a white one I gladly oblige. However if he states he wants it done because he is worried about mercury (and the filling is otherwise ok) I try hard to talk him out of it. I point out to them that I still have old amalgams in my mouth. But I let the patient make the final decision.

If the tooth cavity is large then neither type of filling is the most suitable way of fixing it; you have to consider inlays/onlays/crowns as mentioned by previous posters.

When I was a dental student in the early 70s we were told that white fillings were weaker than amalgam. That was true then. There have been some improvements made in dental materials since then.

Big_G

I agree with you georgy. I am confident of my composite and bonding technique. Recent advances such as true nano-hybrids and the use of air abrasion have increased the longevity of composite restorations.

However, it is a very technique sensitive procedure. Unlike amalgam. Any ape can thumb an amalgam into a tooth and it will last a significant amount of time. But if you are not aware of the variables that govern success with composite, it is a different story. And I'm afraid to say, from what I've seen, not every dentist is aware of these variables. I'm sure you are, with 17 years or more of experience placing composite.

I too will replace an amalgam with a composite if the patient is concerned about aesthetics, but not if they are worried about mercury exposure for previously stated reasons.

To the OP, the simple fact of the matter is that we know more about this subject than you do. That is why we don't agree with what you are doing. We are trying to warn you away from an area of dentistry that has left many open to being taken advantage of. That is all I will say on that.

samson09

georgieporgy wrote: »

I haven't placed an amalgam filling since 1992. I think a good composite (white) filling will last as long as a good amalgam filling. I use composite simply because I think it's better than amalgam and it certainly looks better. Most of my patients request white fillings. All of this has nothing to do with being scared of mercury. If someone asks me to replace an ugly black filling with a white one I gladly oblige. However if he states he wants it done because he is worried about mercury (and the filling is otherwise ok) I try hard to talk him out of it. I point out to them that I still have old amalgams in my mouth. But I let the patient make the final decision.

If the tooth cavity is large then neither type of filling is the most suitable way of fixing it; you have to consider inlays/onlays/crowns as mentioned by previous posters.

When I was a dental student in the early 70s we were told that white fillings were weaker than amalgam. That was true then. There have been some improvements made in dental materials since then.

Thanks for your advice, its nice to know that there's still people out there who can give their opinion without bringing an overly inflated ego into it.

gucu

<schnip> You seem genuine so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here. First, you are spamming. Second, you only have 4 posts. Third read the charter.

Quacksalber

I would like to discuss the amalgam issue. I specifically joined because I wish to debate this issue with dentists.
Please tell me what forum I can discuss this issue on.

fitgeme - you said

This has been done to death hear before.

Where are these threads ? Because when I searched I could only find a few threads on the topic where debate was stiffled saying it had been discussed before.

Big_G

You know full well that it has been discussed here before as you were a significant contributor to the main thread on this topic.Debate on this issue has not been stifled. In the previous thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055133828&page=3 you can see that no evidence was submitted either way on this topic. It descended into an opinionated farce and was closed. So don't even try it. It's not flying here. You are allowed to debate if you can present evidence (peer reviewed journals please) for your viewpoint.

Quacksalber

Big_G wrote: »

You know full well that it has been discussed here before as you were a significant contributor to the main thread on this topic.Debate on this issue has not been stifled. In the previous thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055133828&page=3 you can see that no evidence was submitted either way on this topic. It descended into an opinionated farce and was closed. So don't even try it. It's not flying here. You are allowed to debate if you can present evidence (peer reviewed journals please) for your viewpoint.

Yes Big_G, and for my trouble attempting to raise relevant points that I wished to discuss, the topic was closed and I was banned. And I do not consider that brief discussion to be equivalent to "This has been done to death hear before." The discussion was only starting. If you checked my other posts you will see I complained about the moderation as I felt it amounted to censorship.

Furthermore, I DID present links to articles on that previous thread. This was the denigrating response I was met with "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."

Ok those articles were published in leading toxicology journals by a highly respected reseacher using valid techniques at a leading US university. This same researcher was involved in the Casa Pia dental amalgam study as the mercury toxicology expert which dentists would hold up to prove amalgam safety (I do not agree but I'm playing devil's advocate).


So this is why I am asking permission to reignite this debate lest I find myself slapped with a ban again. I want to discuss this with dental experts such as yourselves. I want to understand your arguments and your point of view. But in order to do that I need for you to be willing to at least discuss it.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Addilynn Inexpensive Iceberg wrote: »

This has been done to death hear before. Lets stick to the OP's origional question for a recommendation.

Ah welcome back quacksalber the declan ganley of anti amalgam, I think we will stick to to original question for a recommendation. Thanks all the same. if you want to resurrect a zombie thread try searching for dental amalgam. Big_G dont feed the troll.