Getting a filling

DublinWriter · 20-05-2005 10:08PM

Lump wrote:

A filling is €70 these days. However, if you had the whie filling stuff in (Only supposed to be used for kids)

White fillings aren't just for kids - they are called composite fillings are consist mainly of a tough plastic compound bonded at molecular level to the tooth via UV light.

I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH TO PEOPLE *NEVER* TO GET THE OLDER AMALGAM FILLINGS!!!!

Amalgam fillings are the older, grey, metal type fillings, and consist of 49% Mercury - a highly poisionous substance. Research in the late 90's showed that Mercury can be a cause of depression and alzeimers.

Many dentists are now back-peddling furiously from Amalgam fillings, and there are quite a few 'Mercury-free' pracises here in Ireland and the UK. The majority of American dentists have now stopped using Amalgam entirely.

€250 sounds steep, I suspect you actually had a root-canal procedure done. Don't forget to get the MED3 form back from the dentist so you can claim some of the tax back.

lomb · 20-05-2005 10:26PM

DublinWriter wrote:

I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH TO PEOPLE *NEVER* TO GET THE OLDER AMALGAM FILLINGS!!!!

lol, amalgum is the best dental material around. 100% forgiving of slight moisture and real world conditions. composites like any plastic crack and shrink and flex when cured leading to recurrent decay or sensitivity paricularly when heavily loaded. in reality large composites need to be placed absolutely meticulously to work, and in the real world amalgum is much more successful. but u are right composite bonds to tooth with a very strong bond and can strenghten it. however whether this bond remains after long periods of time under loading with the material flexing is debateable and depends on the initial bond strength and the loading i suppose. still it can be very useful paradoxically if there is nothing left of a tooth and the patient cant afford something else. a big composite can hold whats left of it together for a long time. i can honestly say a major complaint i had was people who had sensitive teeth caused by large composites placed previously.

90% of all dentists would prefer amalgum in their teeth. trinity college for the most part insist on amalgums for all load bearing surfaces and the NHS definately do or u dont get paid squat.also composite is a known carcinogen in the uncured state. however composites are fine if carefully placed in reasonably small cavities, and the size of cavities that they can be placed in sucessfully is getting bigger as the material improve. there is no way i would put composite in my teeth if it was heavily damaged with several walls missing. in the short term amalgum is fine or long term probably ceramic type crowns as no one likes to look like jaws

DublinWriter · 20-05-2005 10:48PM

lomb wrote:

lol, amalgum is the best dental material around....90% of all dentists would prefer amalgum in their teeth. trinity college for the most part insist on amalgums for all load bearing surfaces and the NHS definately do or

Crapology, and it just shows how far behind the times Dental training has lagged in this country. Don't believe me? Google the words 'Amalgam fillings' for details of some of the research.

Pet · 20-05-2005 11:01PM

Where can one get mercury fillings removed? I have two and I really, really want to get them replaced with non-mercury ones..

lomb · 20-05-2005 11:04PM

Pet wrote:

Where can one get mercury fillings removed? I have two and I really, really want to get them replaced with non-mercury ones..

at a dentist

u will get a lot more mercury exposure when they are removed than while they are currently in your mouth, but true they dont look the best

Pet · 20-05-2005 11:35PM

lomb wrote:

at a dentist u will get a lot more mercury exposure when they are removed than while they are currently in your mouth, but true they dont look the best

There's a way to get them removed that doesn't involve a lot of mercury exposure, but only certain dentists do it. They give you an alternative air supply, dental dam, etc, and sometimes offer chelation therapy. That's what I'm looking for..

lomb · 21-05-2005 09:50AM

Pet wrote:

sometimes offer chelation therapy. That's what I'm looking for..

well ive never heard of that and i am qualified 5 years......rubber dam is a good idea though definately

DublinWriter · 21-05-2005 11:31AM

lomb wrote:

at a dentist u will get a lot more mercury exposure when they are removed than while they are currently in your mouth, but true they dont look the best

Which is why you should use a dental/rubber dam when removing amalgams.

Pet · 22-05-2005 02:13AM

lomb wrote:

well ive never heard of that and i am qualified 5 years......rubber dam is a good idea though definately

Yeah, I guess that's for people who have mercury poisoning from having loads of fillings and/or faulty leaking ones.

But; do you know any practices that follow the protocol of using dams and alternative air supplies and such?

lomb · 22-05-2005 07:55AM

Pet wrote:

But; do you know any practices that follow the protocol of using dams and alternative air supplies and such?

indeed i dont pet, i have never heard of using alternative air supplies. tbh the high volume suction is very powerful and the vapour would indeed get all sucked into that. if one used a differenet air supply the mouth would have to be covered and then nothing could be done. rubber dam is the dentists choice. some use it for fillings, some dont. u would have to ask i suppose.

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 22-05-2005 08:03AM

DublinWriter wrote:

Crapology, and it just shows how far behind the times Dental training has lagged in this country. Don't believe me? Google the words 'Amalgam fillings' for details of some of the research.

OK 1. The origional poster obviously had a Root Canal and by the sounds of it a re-treatment under 300 e for this is extreemly cheap. As lomb said only advanced dentistry get med 2 tax relief

2. Dublin Writer - the training and standard of dentistry in Ireland is some of the best in the world including America and sweeden and I have studied in both places. You get good and not so good practioneers everywhere but in general it is excellent here. Amalgam has been proved to be completly safe by rigerous studies for 50 years. Why would we lie when I could charge a lot more for a white filling and replace it more frequently, there is no conspiracy. Trinity school and hospital practices evidence based dentistry in order to provide the best most up to date treatment for patients and at present the evidence is that amalgam is the best restoration for back teeth, infact small white fillings are the worst for leaking cause they shrink from all sides. If you want white back teeth get porcelain inlays or hugh strength ceramic crowns however I think the cost of such treatment would be prohibitive for most. Remember that the composite contains metal salts also, it causes allergic responces on your skin (not in your mouth). Is related to female hormones (I dont believe this but google it and would will find some pseudoscientific garbage about it), it shrinks, it cracks, it discolours, it costs more and couse its white when you take it out you always loose some sound tooth with it.

3. The Amalgam debate rages on because people believe everything that read. Most of the anti amalgam research is poorly done, draws conclusions from insignifigant results and plain lies. Unfortunatly in this 24 hour news world a health scare will always get more attention than it deserves.

lomb · 22-05-2005 08:47AM

yep, the ADA, the american dental association still recommend amalgum, and we

know how litigous they are there. also it would be considered unethical to remove sound amalgums in the united states for the only reason of supposed 'mercury poisioning' and this is the usa we are talking about.....

amalgum is the most tested material in history and is considered safe by all the real studies.

as fitzgeme says high strength ceramic crowns like cerec fabricated crowns/ or bonded inlays/onlays are the way to go if u insist on white teeth. anyone offering large composites as a replacement for large amalgums is wasting their time and your time, money and teeth. like anything else economics plays a role and the 600ish euros per inlay is expensive. also to put one of these in there is the inevitable loss of some tooth.....

DublinWriter · 22-05-2005 11:56AM

lomb wrote:

yep, the ADA, the american dental association still recommend amalgum, and we know how litigous they are there.

Basically, it's a money thing. There are have been a couple of hundred of cases in the US courts regarding the use of Amalgam fillings. Although all the cases were lost, there still is a worry amoung dentists that it could turn into their 'Thalidomide'.

The ADA may say that Amalgam is safe, but they have added the following qualifications about its use:

http://www.cent4dent.com/html/mercury_issues/mercuryADA.html

Mercury is a poision. Full stop. Amalgam fillings are composed of 49% Mercury and Amalgam is a 19th Century dental technology. The can expand and damage teeth.

A increasing number of practising dentists operate Amalgam-free practises, so the reservations about its use can't all be from 'cranks'.

lomb · 22-05-2005 12:00PM

DublinWriter wrote:

A increasing number of practising dentists operate Amalgam-free practises, so the reservations about its use can't all be from 'cranks'.

amalgum free practioners are seen by many in the profession as 'cowboys' tbh. i personally would prefer high strength ceramic inlays for fillings. composite is not a good material in bulk.

if someone wants an amalgum free mouth budget 6-900 euros per inlay.

DublinWriter · 22-05-2005 12:20PM

lomb wrote:

amalgum free practioners are seen by many in the profession as 'cowboys' tbh.

I'd be very careful in using that term. A Dentist I know (not my own) who has a pracise out in DunLaoghaire, works on an Amalgam-free basis. He's qualified for over 30 years now and could hardly be described as a 'cowboy'.

The term 'cowboy' usually applies to someone not qualified/skilled in a profession, or someone who takes disproportionate professional risks.

I'd describe Dentists operating amalgam-free practises as being more 'risk-averse' and 'conscienscious' than your average dental practisioner.

lomb · 22-05-2005 12:22PM

DublinWriter wrote:

I'd describe Dentists operating amalgam-free practises as being more 'risk-averse' and 'conscienscious' than your average dental practisioner.

Well i dont tbh, dentistry has changed as a business. it went from something needed to almost what it is today, something the patient wants. and the profession has changed to cope with this shift. the US is an extreme example where you go in with a mouth that is 'healthy' and come out with 16 veneers. this is insane if u think about it, however if patients want it...

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 22-05-2005 01:40PM

DublinWriter wrote:

Mercury is a poision. Full stop. Amalgam fillings are composed of 49% Mercury and Amalgam is a 19th Century dental technology. The can expand and damage teeth.

A increasing number of practising dentists operate Amalgam-free practises, so the reservations about its use can't all be from 'cranks'.

I love this one...ok so talbe salt is 50% chlorine a deadly poision? But salt in moderation is necessary for life....hummmmm.. All the murcury in dental amalgam is bound to other metals. The ammount given off has been measured very precisely and you get more murcury from one portion of fish a week than from 20 large amalgams in your mouth. Also the amalgam used today bears little resemblance to the early amalgams (and these were fine) The addition of copper and other metals has both improved strength, longevity and decreased the already miniscule ammounts of murcury given off over the years.

Many thing are poison...the chlorine in water to make it safe to drink, water itself is a poison,

Amalgam free practices are fine. They appeal to the kind of market/person who is concerned about silver fillings and get them worked up about it and charge alot of money to replace good fillings.

At the end of the day there are your teeth and you can have whatever you wish in them...the best way to avoid silver fillings is to brush, floss and dont eat lots of junk. But white fillings in my experiance often lead to many problems for the patient unless placed by a operator who really take a lot of time (and this will cost you).

Ps the photos in you link are of Ceramic inlays not bog standard white fillings

DublinWriter · 22-05-2005 08:13PM

lomb wrote:

the US is an extreme example where you go in with a mouth that is 'healthy' and come out with 16 veneers. this is insane if u think about it, however if patients want it...

I will agree with you there. Ronan Keating is a good example of that, having gotten all that work done before trying to conquer the states, although I think David Bowie needed those Procera crowns!

But I think we'd all agree that the States would be leading edge when it comes to dentistry?

General precautions here are shoddy in my own experience. For example, I had a saline solution get into my eyes during a periodontal procedure a couple of years ago (wasn't offered goggles), and I've had my right/left upper 1's nearly chipped by scraping tools used during molar restorations by numerous dentists in Ireland.

Regarding the last poster, unlike Salt and Chlorine, I don't think Mercury has any other beneficial usage qualities except for amalgams, so it's a mute arguement.

Getting a filling

Comments