Posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 15:20:21
In reply to Re: A quack means a dentist using quicksilver, posted by stjames on May 8, 2003, at 12:25:52
StJames,
I actually had a pretty long response to your questions written out, but I got up to go get something to eat, and my wife mistakenly closed it. I was so bugged that I lost all the work, because I actually typed out what would have been a pretty thoughtful response.
You have the right to regard my opinios as you will. I am not offended by this. Truthfully, I don't have any special or priveleged information outside what anyone else could obtain.
Here goes:
>>I have way over 100 amalgam fillings, top and bottom, past the canines. It is common in my fathers family to
have large #'s of cavities till about 18 and then have almost noneThis is actually a very common pattern, my family has the same one. The reason they stop might have something to do with the elimination of deep grooves that are not accessible to bristles of a toothbrush. So when a filling is placed, it is more hygienic. The better alternative to this would have been to get sealants placed. This accomplishes the same thing by sealing those inaccessible grooves, but is done before the decay starts, so the tooth structure is conserved.
But 100 amalgam fillings? I am not sure how this would be possible! Personally, if I saw a patient with that much decay I would have planned for crowns, hands down. This would have eliminated any problems you personally had with amalgam at the same time.
What you referred to as “epoxy” fillings are composite resin fillings, and they are vastly better these days than before (back in the 70’s you said?) They should not fall out, especially in anterior teeth (front teeth) because they actually micromechanically bond to dentin tubules in the teeth. So any dentist these days would use composite resin in anterior teeth, without question. There are absolutely no advantages in using amalgam in front teeth (not to mention, it looks very bad), and every reason to use composite.
The back teeth are a different question. If your question is about chronic amalgam exposure and whether you should remove your fillings for health reasons, well you can get an idea of my opinion about that in the previous posts. Breifly, I don’t feel they cause or contribute in any measurable way to disease (including psychiatric problems), and don’t think that removing them would be of any good to you. Larry has different opinions on this, so you can weigh what we have both said and decide for yourself.
Composite is getting better and better for back teeth, and the strength is getting really good, but not as good as amalgam for stress bearing areas. I don’t think they would typically fall out, but that all depends on the size, location, and if a cusp (pointy part) is decayed or broken off. I really could not say for sure without seeing your teeth in person, so this is just general information.
>> So it would seem removing this much amalgam would
render a huge dose of mercury into my bodyYes, it does, especially if proper precautions are not taken, such as rubber dam placement. But I think Larry’s argument is more about chronic exposure and toxicity, which (he feels) happens when they stay in the mouth for a long period. From what I understand now, transiently high mercury levels are not as big of a deal (to people who are concerned about this, and advocate removal).
Imagine how much money dentists would make if they routinely suggested removal of amalgam fillings and replacement with composite! Why aren’t they doing this? The same reason most dentists advocated fluoridation back in the 60’s and 70’s, because it is in the patients best interest. It is deceitful to tell people to remove their amalgams for health reasons, because there is no reliable evidence saying that is the case. So if American dentists were the quacks Larry says we are, we would be just salivating, thinking about the fat cash we would be making by replacing the legions of amalgams occupying the mouths of Americans!
>>With hind sight, what would of been a better option for a kid who has 6 cavities every 6 months, for over 10 years ?
One word: Sealants!
>>Gold seems too expensive on this scale.
I would imagine! There are other non-amalgam materials besides gold, such as porcelain fused to metal crowns (don’t worry, no amalgam!), porcelain onlays, composites.
My question for you is this: Are you getting the amalgams replaced because they are defective or have recurrent decay? Or are you replacing them because you are worried about the mercury load? If it is the former, than you will likely need some crowns or onlays, if you have as many fillings as you say. If it is the latter, than my suggestion is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”, and you know my position on whether amalgam causes disease.
Did I answer everything? Let me know if I can answer anything else. Again, I have no special knowledge, but will do the best I can. I hope this helps some.
Thanks,
Matt
poster:mattdds
thread:223248
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030505/msgs/225169.html