![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 45. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 9:57:19
In reply to Dental amalgam increases disease? Or just Hg level » Larry Hoover, posted by mattdds on May 5, 2003, at 14:10:04
> Larry,
>
> You certainly seem to have done your homework on this, and I am overwhelmed by the amount of citations you have provided.
>
> I briefly looked through them, and although the recurrent theme is that mercury is that mercury is indeed a neurotoxin, and definitely an environmental problem as far as disposal, I still am not convinced that there is any correlation between dental amalgams and actual disease. Do you know of any such convincing evidence? I am not aware of any. I don't mean evidence showing how much mercury is liberated during mastication, I mean actual epidemiological evidence linking, e.g. depression to the amount of restored tooth surfaces in amalgam.
>
> Don't you think this would simplify things a bit? Because until we have real epidemiological evidence linking amalgam fillings to real diagnosable diseases, we are making rather large inductive leaps that cannot be considered good science. So all the discussion about mercury levels liberated during mastication, etc. seems like somewhat of a waste of time, when we could just cut to the chase and ask "does mercury used in a dental setting cause an increase in systemic diseases, or psychiatric problems?". As of now I think the answer is an unequivocal "NO, it does not".The problem is that the correlation between these two parameters has been little studied. It is an axiom in science, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." There have been some reasonably large epidemiological reports finding no relationship, but in some studies within preselected populations, there have been correlations. Here are a few abstracts that are suggestive of physical, psychological and behavioural impacts directly linked to amalgam, or similar exposures:
J Nephrol 2002 Mar-Apr;15(2):171-6
Mercury in dental restoration: is there a risk of nephrotoxicity?Mortada WL, Sobh MA, El-Defrawy MM, Farahat SE.
Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Faculty of Science, Egypt.
BACKGROUND: Concern has been voiced about exposure to mercury (Hg) from dental amalgam fillings, and there is a need to assess whether this leads to signs of nephrotoxicity. METHODS: A total of 101 healthy adults (80 males and 21 females) were included in this study. The population as grouped into those having amalgam fillings (39 males and 10 females) and those without (41 males and 11 females). Hg was determined in blood, urine, hair and nails to assess exposure. Urinary excretion of beta2-microglobulin (beta2M), N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), gamma-glutamyltransferase (gammaGT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were determined as markers of tubular damage. Albuminuria was assayed as an early indicator of glomerular dysfunction. Serum creatinine, beta2M and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were determined to assess glomerular filtration. RESULTS: Hg levels in blood and urine were significantly higher in persons with dental amalgam than those without; in the dental amalgam group, blood and urine levels of Hg significantly correlated with the number of amalgams. Urinary excretion of NAG, gammaGT and albumin was significantly higher in persons with dental amalgam than those without. In the amalgam group, urinary excretion of NAG and albumin significantly correlated with the number of fillings. Albuminuria significantly correlated with blood and urine Hg. CONCLUSION: From the nephrotoxicity point of view, dental amalgam is an unsuitable filling material, as it may give rise to Hg toxicity. Hg levels in blood and urine are good markers of such toxicity. In these exposure conditions, renal damage is possible and may be assessed by urinary excretions of albumin, NAG, and gamma-GT.
Sci Total Environ 1990 Dec 1;99(1-2):23-35The relationship between mercury from dental amalgam and the cardiovascular system.
Siblerud RL.
Department of Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biological Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523.
The findings presented here suggest that mercury poisoning from dental amalgam may play a role in the etiology of cardiovascular disorders. Comparisons between subjects with and without amalgam showed amalgam-bearing subjects had significantly higher blood pressure, lower heart rate, lower hemoglobin, and lower hematocrit. Hemoglobin, hematocrit, and red blood cells were significantly lower when correlated to increased levels of urine mercury. The amalgam subjects had a greater incidence of chest pains, tachycardia, anemia, fatigue, tiring easily, and being tired in the morning. The data suggest that inorganic mercury poisoning from dental amalgam does affect the cardiovascular system.
Am J Psychother 1989 Oct;43(4):575-87
The relationship between mercury from dental amalgam and mental health.
Siblerud RL.
Colorado State University, Department of Physiology, Fort Collins.
The findings presented here suggest that mercury poisoning from dental amalgam may play a role in the etiology of mental illness. Comparisons between subjects with and without amalgam showed significant differences in subjective reports of mental health. Subjects who had amalgams removed reported that symptoms of mental illness lessened or disappeared after removal. The data suggest that inorganic mercury poisoning from dental amalgam does affect the mind and emotions.
Psychol Rep 1994 Feb;74(1):67-80
Psychometric evidence that mercury from silver dental fillings may be an etiological factor in depression, excessive anger, and anxiety.
Siblerud RL, Motl J, Kienholz E.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute, Inc., Fort Collins, CO 80524.
Scores on the Beck Depression Inventory were compared for 25 women who had silver dental fillings (amalgams) and for 23 women without amalgams. Women with amalgams had significantly higher scores and reported more symptoms of fatigue and insomnia. Anger scores from the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory showed that the women with amalgams had statistically significantly higher mean scores on expressing anger without provocation and experiencing more intense angry feelings. The women without amalgams scored significantly higher on controlling anger, which suggested they invested more energy in monitoring and preventing the experience and expression of anger. Anxiety scores from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory showed the women with amalgams scored significantly less pleasant, satisfied, happy, secure, and steady, and had a more difficult time making decisions. They had significantly higher Trait Anxiety scores. The women with amalgams also had significantly higher levels of mercury in the oral cavity before and after chewing gum. The study suggests that amalgam mercury may be an etiological factor in depression, excessive anger, and anxiety because mercury can produce such symptoms perhaps by affecting the neurotransmitters in the brain.
Psychol Rep 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 2):1139-51
A comparison of mental health of multiple sclerosis patients with silver/mercury dental fillings and those with fillings removed.
Siblerud RL.
Rocky Mountain Research Institute, Inc., Colorado.
In this study was compared the mental health status of 47 multiple sclerosis patients with silver/mercury tooth fillings (amalgams) to that of 50 patients with their fillings removed. On the Beck Depression Inventory the multiple sclerosis subjects with amalgams suffered significantly more depression while their scores on the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory indicated the former group also exhibited significantly more anger. On the SCL-90 Revised, subjects with amalgam fillings had significantly more symptoms of depression, hostility, psychotism, and were more obsessive-compulsive than the patients with such fillings removed. On a questionnaire containing 18 mental health symptoms multiple sclerosis subjects with amalgam fillings reported a history of 43% more symptoms than those without amalgam fillings over the past 12 months. These data suggested that the poorer mental health status exhibited by multiple sclerosis subjects with dental amalgam fillings may be associated with mercury toxicity from the amalgam.
FASEB J 1998 Aug;12(11):971-80
Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam Hg(o): new distinctions between recent exposure and Hg body burden.Echeverria D, Aposhian HV, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Aposhian MM, Bittner AC Jr, Mahurin RK, Cianciola M.
Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, Seattle, Washington 98105, USA.
Potential toxicity from exposure to mercury vapor (Hg(o)) from dental amalgam fillings is the subject of current public health debate in many countries. We evaluated potential central nervous system (CNS) toxicity associated with handling Hg-containing amalgam materials among dental personnel with very low levels of Hg(o) exposure (i.e., urinary Hg <4 microg/l), applying a neurobehavioral test battery to evaluate CNS functions in relation to both recent exposure and Hg body burden. New distinctions between subtle preclinical effects on symptoms, mood, motor function, and cognition were found associated with Hg body burden as compared with those associated with recent exposure. The pattern of results, comparable to findings previously reported among subjects with urinary Hg >50 microg/l, presents convincing new evidence of adverse behavioral effects associated with low Hg(o) exposures within the range of that received by the general population.
Neurotoxicol Teratol 1995 Mar-Apr;17(2):161-8
Behavioral effects of low-level exposure to elemental Hg among dentists.Echeverria D, Heyer NJ, Martin MD, Naleway CA, Woods JS, Bittner AC Jr.
Battelle Center for Public Health Research and Evaluation (CPHRE), Seattle, WA 98105, USA.
Exposure thresholds for health effects associated with elemental mercury (Hg degree) exposure were examined by comparing behavioral test scores of 19 exposed (mean urinary Hg = 36 micrograms/l) with those of 20 unexposed dentists. Thirty-six micrograms Hg/l is 7 times greater than the 5 micrograms Hg/l mean level measured in a national sample of dentists. To improve the distinction between recent and cumulative effects, the study also evaluated porphyrin concentrations in urine, which are correlated with renal Hg content (a measure of cumulative body burden). Subjects provided an on-site spot urine sample, were administered a 1-h assessment consisting of a consent form, the Profile of Mood Scales, a symptom and medical questionnaire, and 6 behavioral tests: digit-span, symbol-digit substitution, simple reaction time, the ability to switch between tasks, vocabulary, and the One Hole Test. Multivariate regression techniques were used to evaluate dose-effects controlling for the effects of age, race, gender and alcohol consumption. A dose-effect was considered statistically significant below a p value of 0.05. Significant urinary Hg dose-effects were found for poor mental concentration, emotional lability, somatosensory irritation, and mood scores. Individual tests evaluating cognitive and motor function changed in the expected directions but were not significantly associated with urinary Hg. However, the pooled sum of rank scores for combinations of tests within domains were significantly associated with urinary Hg, providing evidence of subtle preclinical changes in behavior associated with Hg exposure. Coproporphyrin, one of three urinary porphyrins altered by mercury exposure, was significantly associated with deficits in digit span and simple reaction time.
> Meanwhile, we have a real, tangible disease to be dealt with: dental caries. And we have to make decisions about how to treat it. Dental amalgam, for many years was THE only option in the armamentarium to treat dental caries, and it remains one of the best for it's strength and affordability. I mean, we can't just go extracting everyone's teeth, just because of what dental amalgam MIGHT do. So we have to make decisions, and to most dentists and people, this was the best one! There is no perfect restorative material, otherwise we would be using it, and avoiding amalgam altogether.That begs the question, "Why avoid it, if it causes no harm?" You see, the question is framed in the dental community as one of risk-benefit analysis rather than one of simply assessing the risk. What is becoming clear is that the mercury in amalgam is quite labile in some cases. The quality of an amalgam restoration can only approach theoretical minimal release, but there are a variety of factors which can cause much higher releases. Every time you breathe or swallow, if you have amalgam in your mouth, you are being exposed to mercury. Some people are exquisitely sensitive to mercury, so the idea that there is a safe level of exposure based on population statistics has no bearing on their experience. Consider the following:
Toxicol Lett 1996 Feb;84(2):113-22
Comment in:
Toxicol Lett. 1998 Sep 1;98(1-2):123-7.
Psychological and somatic subjective symptoms as a result of dermatological patch testing with metallic mercury and phenyl mercuric acetate.Marcusson JA.
Department of Dermatology, Huddinge University Hospital, Sweden.
Sixty patients with a history of malaise over the ensuing weeks following the drilling out of old amalgam fillings were included in the study. They were tested epicutaneously weekly (standard procedure) with either 0.5% metallic mercury in petrolatum or 0.01% phenyl mercuric acetate in water, and, on 2 separate occasions, with only saline or petrolatum as a control according to a randomized double-blind protocol. The presence or absence of an allergic patch test response was read on day 3. Two patients showed allergic cutaneous responses towards metallic mercury and 1 to phenyl mercuric acetate. There was a concurrent 7-day self-registration of subjective psychological and somatic symptoms, using a validated visual analogue scale (minor symptom evaluation profile; MSE). In the group analysis it was clearly shown that the patients reacted with subjective symptoms to phenyl mercuric acetate. A reaction to test doses of metallic mercury seems to exist but could only be visualized when a scoring system was elaborated to individually define those subjects with a psychological and somatic response to test doses of mercury. This psychosomatic reactivity, named intolerance, seems to be unrelated to the cutaneous delayed allergic skin response. Thus, it might be possible to identify patients intolerant to small test doses of percutaneously penetrating mercury (previously considered innocuous). These findings may have a bearing on the systemic side-effects attributed to mercury released from amalgam tooth fillings.
Now, the idea that there is a disorder of defined characteristics arising from exposure to mercury in amalgam, sometimes called "amalgam disease", has received some fairly intensive study. Not surprisingly (as I'll explain), most of the results have been negative, instead attributing the complaints of the subjects as somatization, i.e. of psychological rather than physical origin. The problem with this is that the very nature of the issue, that a commonly-experienced low-level exposure to a proven neurotoxin is almost certainly bound to attract the attention of those people who are somatizers. If you allow those people to self-select into the study population, you no longer have a representative population sample. Those with mercury sensitivities will surely be diluted to such an extent that no relationship will be found. Instead, consider the possibility that those with mercury sensitivity have been given reasonable alternative explanations for their symptomatology, such as dysthymia, depression, or chronic fatigue. They already have a plausible explanation, so may no longer seek out alternative viewpoints. I think it is reasonable to consider mercury exposure as a possible factor influencing mood disorders. Perhaps subtle, perhaps profound.
In some places in the world, amalgam disease is taken seriously.
Neuroendocrinol Lett 2002 Oct-Dec;23(5-6):459-82
Removal of dental amalgam and other metal alloys supported by antioxidant therapy alleviates symptoms and improves quality of life in patients with amalgam-associated ill health.
Lindh U, Hudecek R, Danersund A, Eriksson S, Lindvall A.
Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Rudbeck Laboratory, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden. Ulf.Lindh@bms.uu.se
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment of patients suffering from chronic ill health with a multitude of symptoms associated with metal exposure from dental amalgam and other metal alloys. SETTING AND DESIGN: We included 796 patients in a retrospective study using a questionnaire about symptom changes, changes in quality of life as a consequence of treatment and assessment of care taking. METHODS: Treatment of the patients by removal of offending dental metals and concomitant antioxidant therapy was implemented according to the Uppsala model based on a close co-operation between physicians and dentists. RESULTS: More than 70% of the responders, remaining after exclusion of those who had not begun or completed removal, reported substantial recovery and increased quality of life. Comparison with similar studies showed accordance of the main results. Plasma concentrations of mercury before and after treatment supported the metal exposure to be causative for the ill health. MAIN FINDINGS: Treatment according to the Uppsala model proved to be adequate for more than 70% of the patients. Patients with a high probability to respond successfully to current therapy might be detected by symptom profiles before treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis that metal exposure from dental amalgam can cause ill health in a susceptible part of the exposed population was supported. Further research is warranted to develop laboratory tests to support identification of the group of patients responding to current therapy as well as to find out causes of problems in the group with no or negative results.
Moreover, it is entirely possible that the doctors have been looking in the wrong place all along. Mercury can form irreversible covalent bonds with selenium, which is both good and bad. It takes organic mercury out of the picture, but at the price of an esssential trace mineral. Consider:
Environ Res 2001 Dec;87(3):141-6
Dental amalgam and selenium in blood.Hol PJ, Vamnes JS, Gjerdet NR, Eide R, Isrenn R.
Department of Odontology-Dental Biomaterials, University of Bergen, Aarstadveien 17, Bergen, N-5009, Norway.
It has been suggested that selenium (Se) exhibits protective effects against mercury (Hg) toxicity in humans due to formation of a Hg-Se complex bound to selenoprotein P in blood. The aim of the present study was to investigate Se concentrations in persons who had been examined with respect to general health problems associated with dental amalgam fillings. The Se concentrations were determined in whole-blood samples of 80 individuals by hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry. The subjects comprised two main groups: 21 healthy controls with amalgam fillings and 20 patients who claimed symptoms from existing amalgam fillings. The median concentration of Se in blood (119.2 microg/L) was statistically significantly lower in subjects who claimed symptoms of mercury amalgam illness than in healthy subjects with amalgam (130.3 microg/L). The difference was more evident in individuals with more than 35 amalgam surfaces (P=0.003). Additional control groups without amalgam fillings comprised 19 healthy controls without amalgam experience and 20 subjects who have had amalgam fillings removed due to suspected symptoms associated with amalgam. The Se concentrations in these groups were not different from those with amalgam. It is indicated that persons with ill health self-related to dental amalgam might have a Se metabolism different from that of healthy people.
One of the reasons mercury is toxic is that it disrupts sulphur-bearing molecules, including many enzymes which rely on sulphur-linkages for their three-dimensional structure (and thus their functionality). Just look around this board and see how many people are dealing with sulphur-amino acid issues: S-adenosyl methionine (SAMe), methionine, betaine (indirectly), folate and B-12 supplements (indirectly), homocysteine. Consider the number of people taking supplemental sulphur in the form of MSM (methyl sulphonyl methane) for e.g. joint problems, or dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO). People consider taking taurine (sulphur-bearing), and I'm forgetting many other examples right now (I'm still foggy from my trip). The point is, I have seen no research linking mercury exposure to disordered sulphur metabolism, but I have seen massive correlation between sulphur metabolism and depression. Stay tuned.
> I was a bit put off by something you said:
>
> >> Think about the brilliance of the first dentist who used it: "Duh! I know! Let's store mercury in people's mouths, and we'll tell them it's safe."
>
> Do you really believe this was some evil plot by a dentist to get rid of mercury in the environment?Were I to rewrite that phrase today, I would use "place" instead of "store". I did not mean to suggest environmental concerns in any respect. You're a dentist, right? It just hit me that you are mattdds. You have very exacting protocols on what to do with excess amalgam, right? You wear rubber gloves to protect against even trivial dermal exposure, correct? But you have no problem placing an amalgam on a buccal surface, guaranteeing exposure to cheek skin, right? Or on an occlusal surface, even in bruxists? Doesn't this seem to suggest different standards being applied in these two situations?
>Strange, I figured it was probably just some dentist trying to fix a tooth, rather than some elaborate evil scheme to poison everyone. Occams Razor comes to mind here. Which would be the simpler explanation? I was a bit surprised that you would say this, being the scientifically minded and intelligent person you seem to be. (Most) dentists are just doing their job of trying to restore function in peoples mouths and prevent further disease (with which dental amalgam has unquestionably helped).
I apologize for offending you, but not for making my statement. I have been told that I can be over-the-top in my negative characterizations, but I do believe that my personal feelings came across, non?
Dentists, like any well-schooled people, are indoctrinated to believe what the extablishment has disseminated. Most of the time, that is an admirable and responsible process, guaranteeing a standard of care across the board. In some cases, it flies in the face of the evidence.
Consider the general concept known as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). Basically, it "grandfathers" well-established practices, and exempts them from focussed inquiry into adverse affects of their use. I would ask you this: "If mercury amalgams were being proposed today as an innovative restorative material for dental caries, do you think that they would get past the regulatory approval process in existence today?" I can guarantee you, they would not get past the committee stage, let alone get into animal trials.
>Saying this seems somewhat irresponsible to me, because people here value your opinions, and they might draw conclusions based on what you say (perhaps making them want to avoid the dentist altogether).
I would hate to think that my statement would have that effect.
I am a human being, full of opinions, all of which are unabashedly biased. Just for the record, I ascribe to an AA aphorism, "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one, and they all stink."
> I am not married to any of the ideas promoted by the ADA, WHO or AMA, but I do feel that whoever makes the claim that dental amalgam is causing depression, multiple sclerosis, etc. bears a tremendous amount of burden to provide evidence for this. The ADA had nothing to gain from their numerous studies on amalgam (all of which failed to show associations between systemic disease and amalgam fillings).I must declare that I categorically oppose that viewpoint. Given the proclivity of the American culture to sue (that was not intended to slight Americans, but I don't think anyone would really deny that), do you really think that the dental establishment has nothing to gain?
> I see using dental amalgam in dentistry somewhat akin to using Lithium or SSRI's in psychiatry. Although we whine that there is no perfect "silver" bullet in psychiatry, we use the best tools that we have, and we make calculated risk to benefit analyses. There are very tangible risks of using some psychiatric drugs, like the MAOI's, TCA's, benzos, and mood stabilizers. But we feel the benefits outweigh the risks. This is the same thing with dental amalgam, but I feel the risks are even smaller and the benefits are great.
>
> Am I making sense here?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> MattRespect returned.
Lar
Random extras:
Toxicology 1995 Mar 31;97(1-3):19-22
The dental amalgam mercury controversy--inorganic mercury and the CNS; genetic linkage of mercury and antibiotic resistances in intestinal bacteria.
Lorscheider FL, Vimy MJ, Summers AO, Zwiers H.
Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Mercury (Hg) vapor exposure from dental amalgam has been demonstrated to exceed the sum of all other exposure sources. Therefore the effects of inorganic Hg exposure upon cell function in the brain and in the intestinal bacteria have recently been examined. In rats we demonstrate that ADP-ribosylation of tubulin and actin brain proteins is markedly inhibited, and that ionic Hg can thus alter a neurochemical reaction involved with maintaining neuron membrane structure. In monkeys we show that Hg, specifically from amalgam, will enrich the intestinal flora with Hg-resistant bacterial species which in turn also become resistant to antibiotics.
Biometals 1999 Sep;12(3):227-31
Dental amalgam mercury exposure in rats.
Galic N, Prpic-Mehicic G, Prester L, Blanusa M, Krnic Z, Ferencic Z.
Department of Dental Pathology, School of Dentistry, Zagreb, Croatia.
The aim of this study was to measure the distribution of mercury, in tissues of rats exposed to amalgam over a two months period. Possible interaction of mercury with copper and zinc in organs was also evaluated. Rats were either exposed to mercury from 4 dental amalgams, or fed the diet containing powdered amalgam during two months. Mercury was measured in the kidney, liver and brain, copper in kidney and brain and zinc in kidney. The results showed significantly higher concentrations of mercury in the kidneys and the brains of rats in both exposed groups compared to control. Even after two months of exposure to mercury brain mercury concentration in rats with amalgam fillings was 8 times higher than in the control and 2 times higher than in rats exposed to amalgam supplemented diet. The highest mercury concentration in the latter group was found in the kidneys and it was 5 times higher than in the control group. We found no significant differences between mercury levels in exposed and control rat's liver. Exposure to mercury from dental amalgams did not alter the concentrations of copper and zinc in the tissues. Histopathological analyses of rats tissues did not show any pathological changes. These results support previously proposed nose-brain transport of mercury released from dental amalgam fillings.
Biol Trace Elem Res 1997 Feb;56(2):143-52
Mercury from maternal "silver" tooth fillings in sheep and human breast milk. A source of neonatal exposure.
Vimy MJ, Hooper DE, King WW, Lorscheider FL.
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Neonatal uptake of mercury (Hg) from milk was examined in a pregnant sheep model, where radioactive mercury (Hg203)/silver tooth fillings (amalgam) were newly placed. A crossover experimental design was used in which lactating ewes nursed foster lambs. In a parallel study, the relationship between dental history and breast milk concentration of Hg was also examined in 33 lactating women. Results from the animal studies showed that, during pregnancy, a primary fetal site of amalgam Hg concentration is the liver, and, after delivery, the neonatal lamb kidney receives additional amalgam Hg from mother's milk. In lactating women with aged amalgam fillings, increased Hg excretion in breast milk and urine correlated with the number of fillings or Hg vapor concentration levels in mouth air. It was concluded that Hg originating from maternal amalgam tooth fillings transfers across the placenta to the fetus, across the mammary gland into milk ingested by the newborn, and ultimately into neonatal body tissues. Comparisons are made to the U. S. minimal risk level recently established for adult Hg exposure. These findings suggest that placement and removal of "silver" tooth fillings in pregnant and lactating humans will subject the fetus and neonate to unnecessary risk of Hg exposure.
FASEB J 1990 Nov;4(14):3256-60
Comment in:
FASEB J. 1991 Feb;5(2):236.Whole-body imaging of the distribution of mercury released from dental fillings into monkey tissues.
Hahn LJ, Kloiber R, Leininger RW, Vimy MJ, Lorscheider FL.
Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Alberta, Canada.
The fate of mercury (Hg) released from dental "silver" amalgam tooth fillings into human mouth air is uncertain. A previous report about sheep revealed uptake routes and distribution of amalgam Hg among body tissues. The present investigation demonstrates the bodily distribution of amalgam Hg in a monkey whose dentition, diet, feeding regimen, and chewing pattern closely resemble those of humans. When amalgam fillings, which normally contain 50% Hg, are made with a tracer of radioactive 203Hg and then placed into monkey teeth, the isotope appears in high concentration in various organs and tissues within 4 wk. Whole-body images of the monkey revealed that the highest levels of Hg were located in the kidney, gastrointestinal tract, and jaw. The dental profession's advocacy of silver amalgam as a stable tooth restorative material is not supported by these findings.
Am J Physiol 1990 Apr;258(4 Pt 2):R939-45
Maternal-fetal distribution of mercury (203Hg) released from dental amalgam fillings.
Vimy MJ, Takahashi Y, Lorscheider FL.
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
In humans, the continuous release of Hg vapor from dental amalgam tooth restorations is markedly increased for prolonged periods after chewing. The present study establishes a time-course distribution for amalgam Hg in body tissues of adult and fetal sheep. Under general anesthesia, five pregnant ewes had twelve occlusal amalgam fillings containing radioactive 203Hg placed in teeth at 112 days gestation. Blood, amniotic fluid, feces, and urine specimens were collected at 1- to 3-day intervals for 16 days. From days 16-140 after amalgam placement (16-41 days for fetal lambs), tissue specimens were analyzed for radioactivity, and total Hg concentrations were calculated. Results demonstrate that Hg from dental amalgam will appear in maternal and fetal blood and amniotic fluid within 2 days after placement of amalgam tooth restorations. Excretion of some of this Hg will also commence within 2 days. All tissues examined displayed Hg accumulation. Highest concentrations of Hg from amalgam in the adult occurred in kidney and liver, whereas in the fetus the highest amalgam Hg concentrations appeared in liver and pituitary gland. The placenta progressively concentrated Hg as gestation advanced to term, and milk concentration of amalgam Hg postpartum provides a potential source of Hg exposure to the newborn. It is concluded that accumulation of amalgam Hg progresses in maternal and fetal tissues to a steady state with advancing gestation and is maintained. Dental amalgam usage as a tooth restorative material in pregnant women and children should be reconsidered.
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 11:17:45
In reply to Re: Dental mercury is a real threat (long) » Larry Hoover, posted by JrBecker on May 3, 2003, at 13:32:23
> Larry, quite fascinating. Does a general dentist typically screen for high levels of mercury if requested? And would these tests actually tell something useful? In other words, is there some sort of standard measure of mercury levels that would warrant action? Or is it really much more hit or miss than that and the only way to see if the fillings have an effect is to actually remove them? Would like to know since I have a few myself.
>
> Let us know if you have any instinct on this when you get back midweek. Thanks.
>
> JBI have never found a more scientifically balanced site than this one (I just discovered it myself, and I haven't thoroughly studied every angle they report, but I am extremely happy to have found it):
http://www.algonet.se/~leif/AmFAQigr.html
It quite rationally discusses what the scientific studies have *really* demonstrated; in other words, the questions actually answered in a research report are not always accurately reflected in the conclusions reached by the authors of the studies, or the gist reported in secondary sources. I heartily recommend a thorough reading of this FAQ. It is very well-referenced.
The Life Extension Foundation (LEF) is a little bit on the fringe, but they are generally quite responsible in their reporting. They have an article at:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/may2001_report_mercury_1.html
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 11:23:41
In reply to Re: Dental mercury is a real threat (long), posted by stjames on May 4, 2003, at 15:19:15
> > About Quackwatch: Dr. Barrett, the dude who runs the site, has been successfully sued for providing biased and defamatory information. Take him with a grain of salt. He generally ignores any science that doesn't fit with his preconceived notions. That's not to say that he's always wrong, but he is often so.
>
>
> So if the courts say it is not good science or heath, that's it ? All this tells me is the Qwacks have good lawyers and Qwackery is big business. Barrett is a zellot, but you, Larry
> as a man of science (at least that is the role
> you play here) quoting law and making it science
> fact has given me pause to disgreguard your posts.So be it.
You may be interested to discover that the very term "quack" was first used to describe those dentists using quicksilver (i.e. mercury) amalgam fillings in their patients.
Additional links:
On the Instability of Amalgams
http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bwf/art/instability.htmlThe Dental Amalgam Issue
http://www.amalgam.org/Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam Hgo: new distinctions
between recent exposure and Hg body burden.
http://www.faseb.org/fj/august98/ECHEVERR.htmlCorrelation of dental amalgam with mercury in brain tissue
http://www.nvbt.nl/hot-metalen4.htmlAmalgam
http://www.medsci.uu.se/occmed/webkurs/trends/hg.htmHealth Canada Position Statement
on Dental Amalgam
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut/zfiles/english/publicat/dental_position_e.htmlDental Amalgam Controversy
http://www.heall.com/body/healthupdates/dentistry/almagam.htmlAmalgam Fillings:
Do Dental Patients Have a Right to Informed Consent?
http://www.fplc.edu/risk/vol2/spring/royal.htmDental Amalgam Litigation Bibliography
http://lawschool.stanford.edu/library/special/cavitybib.htmlOpen Directory - Health: Alternative: Non-Toxic Living: Mercury and Amalgams
http://dmoz.org/Health/Alternative/Non-Toxic_Living/Mercury_and_Amalgams/Lar
Posted by stjames on May 8, 2003, at 12:25:52
In reply to Re: A quack means a dentist using quicksilver » stjames, posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 11:23:41
Sigh,
Well for me this becomes a non issue, as I indicated in the post above I have a large amount
of amalgam and feel taking it out would be
a health risk, do to increased exposure. Not to mention the cost and what to use in its place.
So I tend to ignore what I cannot change.Also, since MattDDS is not answering my questions
I am tending not to view his opinions as valid.
I would like to hear his opinions on my options,
if he thinks I have any.So, what say you, Larry ? Any ideas for dealing
this load of mercury in my mouth ? Please don't say, "Take it out" as I do not have that kind of money !
Posted by stjames on May 8, 2003, at 12:33:41
In reply to Re: A quack means a dentist using quicksilver » stjames, posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 11:23:41
Hmmm,
Reading over all of this I may not of been clear.
I do not question that mercury is toxic, I just feel the ways to remove it and options to replace it are worse.
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 14:18:41
In reply to Re: A quack means a dentist using quicksilver, posted by stjames on May 8, 2003, at 12:25:52
> Sigh,
>
> Well for me this becomes a non issue, as I indicated in the post above I have a large amount
> of amalgam and feel taking it out would be
> a health risk, do to increased exposure. Not to mention the cost and what to use in its place.
> So I tend to ignore what I cannot change.
>
> Also, since MattDDS is not answering my questions
> I am tending not to view his opinions as valid.
> I would like to hear his opinions on my options,
> if he thinks I have any.
>
> So, what say you, Larry ? Any ideas for dealing
> this load of mercury in my mouth ? Please don't say, "Take it out" as I do not have that kind of money !One of the simplest interventions is to increase your selenium intake. The covalent compound of selenium and mercury has a solubility in water that is so low it is almost unmeasurable (it's somewhere around 10 to -70). Selenium supplementation is synergistic with vitamin E, so always take E with selenium. Vitamin C has also been suggested as a possible strategy.
Sci Total Environ 2000 Jan 17;245(1-3):15-24
An assessment of selenium to mercury in Greenland marine animals.
Dietz R, Riget F, Born EW.
National Environmental Research Institute, Department of Arctic Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark. rdi@dmu.dk
Information on mercury and selenium molar relation in muscle, liver and kidney tissue of Greenland marine animals is presented. In the majority of the samples selenium was present in a molar surplus to mercury. This was most clear in molluscs, crustaceans, fish and seabirds. A 1:1 molar ratio was found in tissues of marine mammals with high mercury concentrations (above approx. 10 nmol/g). This was most clearly demonstrated for liver and kidney tissue of polar bear and for ringed seal with high mercury concentration in the liver. These findings support previous results found in liver tissue of marine mammals, suggesting that methyl mercury is detoxified by a chemical mechanism involving selenium. If the anthropogenic release of mercury to the environment increases in the future due to increasing energy demands, species such as polar bears and seals with high tissue mercury concentrations should be monitored to elucidate whether this protective mechanism can be maintained in target organs.
Sci Total Environ 1984 Sep;38:33-40
Selenium and its interrelation with mercury in wholeblood and hair in an East Greenlandic population.
Hansen JC, Kromann N, Wulf HC, Alboge K.
138 Blood samples and 12 hair samples from the district of Angmagssalik, East Greenland, have been analysed for selenium and mercury. It was found that selenium like mercury, was absorbed in accordance with the amount of marine food eaten. The mean blood concentration in the group eating most marine food was 173 and 186 micrograms Hg/1 for men and women, respectively, while in the group eating the lowest quantity of marine food, the mean values were 86 and 118 micrograms Hg/1. In blood, the selenium and mercury did not correlate in individuals, but only in groups according to eating habits. On a molar basis, selenium is present in blood in excess as compared to mercury, while the opposite is the case for hair. It is concluded that only part of the selenium interacts with mercury, and that blood, but not hair, reflects present dietary intake. The righ supply of selenium in relation to mercury exposure through the traditional arctic food is probably able to alleviate the hazards from dietary mercury exposure.
Ann N Y Acad Sci 1980;355:212-26
Interactions of vitamin E and selenium with mercury and silver.
Ganther HE.
It is well established that the toxicity of silver and methylmercury is suppressed by the presence of low levels of vitamin E or selenium in the diet, but little is known of the mechanisms involved. Silver induces a conditioned deficiency of selenium in rats, as shown by its effects on tissue levels of selenium and glutathione peroxidase (a selenoprotein), but methylmercury does not. Supplements of selenium do not decrease mercury levels in tissues of animals given methylmercury, and animals given selenium plus methylmercury may accumulate high levels of mercury without signs of toxicity. Although an equimolar accumulation of selenium and mercury in tissues sometimes occurs and could lead to mutual detoxification, such a coaccumulation is not always linked to protection. The only known functions of vitamin E and selenium are related to the prevention of oxidative damage. It is possible that their protective effects against heavy metals may involve such functions, thus accounting for the protection afforded by low levels of the nutrients against high levels of the metal toxicants.
Posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 14:33:45
In reply to Re: Dental amalgam increases disease? (long) » mattdds, posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 9:57:19
Hi Larry,
It is always a waste of time to try to convince someone else of something they have a strong bias or opinion against. This type of exchange will only lead the both of us to strengthen our existing opinions.
However, I was not impressed with either the sources you cited or the quality of studies they performed. You did provide an overwhelming **number** of studies, but I think the quality of most of them was pretty poor. A few of them, seemed like zealots, with strong biases. Kind of like the anti-fluoridation zealots or the people that say that using psychiatric drugs will cause creepy, mysterious diseases. If one wants to find evidence supporting something, it can be found if one looks hard enough. All it takes these days is a search on Google or pubmed. The problem is, in the meanwhile, better performed studies may overlooked, because they don’t fit the preconceived notions.
You quoted “The Rocky Mountain Research Institute” a couple of times. One of their articles was attempting to make a link between dental amalgam and Alzheimer’s disease. I thought that they pretty much had the etiology of Alzheimer’s nailed down; having to do with beta-amyloid plaques that accumulate in the brain. You are taking a very controversial and unsupported view on this one. And you will have to do better than one small study containing 48 people, performed by a highly biased “research” group.
For what it’s worth, here is the statement from the Alzheimers Association, who as far as I know, are advocates for those with the disease, don’t give a damn about us quack American dentists (as you put it) being sued, and don’t have any connection with the evil dental amalgam manufacturers:
"According to the best available scientific evidence there is no relationship between silver dental fillings and Alzheimer's." (Alzheimer's Association)
On a similar note:
Saxe SR, Wekstein MW et al. "Alzheimer's disease, dental amalgam and mercury", JADA 1999 Feb;130(2):191-9This study consisted of 68 human subjects with diagnosed Alzheimer's disease and 33 control subjects without Alzheimer's to determine mercury levels in multiple brain regions at autopsy and to ascertain the subjects' dental amalgam status and history. Conclusions: Mercury in dental amalgam restorations does not appear to be a neurotoxic factor in the pathogenesis of this disease. The authors found that brain mercury levels are not associated with dental amalgam, either from existing amalgam restorations or according to subjects' dental amalgam restoration history. Furthermore, dental amalgam restorations, regardless of number, occlusal surface area or time, do not relate to brain mercury level.
I think these are pretty clear.
You quoted the same group as having done some research about a link between multiple sclerosis and amalgam. Boy, these guys are on a roll!
Here is what the National Multiple Sclerosis Society said about that:
"There is no scientific evidence to connect the development of MS or other neurological diseases with dental fillings containing mercury." (National Multiple Sclerosis Society)
Again, pretty clear, I think.
The Academy of Pediatrics has said this:
"There is no scientific evidence of any measurable clinical toxic effects [of dental amalgam]." (American Academy of Pediatrics)
From reading your posts, I picked up on a sense of mistrust of large health organizations. E.g. the ADA, and perhaps groups like the ones I just cited. Am I correct on this? If so I apologize. If it is true, I would be curious as to why you feel that your opinions are better than the overwhelming majority of your peer scientists.
Also, you wrote:
>>Were I to rewrite that phrase today, I would use "place" instead of "store". I did not mean to suggest environmental concerns in any respect. You're a dentist, right? It just hit me that you are mattdds. You have very exacting protocols on what to do with excess amalgam, right? You wear rubber gloves to protect against even trivial dermal exposure, correct? But you have no problem placing an amalgam on a buccal surface, guaranteeing exposure to cheek skin, right? Or on an occlusal surface, even in bruxists? Doesn't this seem to suggest different standards being applied in these two situations?
First, no I’m not a dentist...yet. I am a 4th year dental student.
Second, I don’t really understand what you are asking (or implying?) here. Since about 1950 we wear gloves ANYTIME we are in a patient’s mouth. This has nothing to do with amalgam but with infectious disease control. We follow the EPA’s and OSHA’s guidelines on amalgam removal and disposal not so much because we secretly and devilishly know how bad amalgam **really** is and want to avoid it ourselves, but more because we don’t want to get our practice shut down by the EPA. These aren’t **our** “exacting protocols" as you suggested (implying that we were trying to protect ourselves from "trivial dermal damage", while unscrupulously and maliciously placing buccal amalgams, while knowingly harming the patient) but ones that have been imposed on us by larger organizations outside our control, so we just follow the rules. As far as buccal pit amalgams, I am confused here too. First off, they are (or should be) placed with a rubber dam until the amalgam sets. Also, I thought the main concern was during mastication? At least that was when you claimed mercury was released, am I right? Mastication involves the occlusal surfaces of the teeth, not the buccal (unless you have some extremely abnormal occlusal morphology). So, I am actually **less** concerned about a buccally placed amalgam restoration. By the way, I personally don’t put amalgam in buccal pits. Amalgam is suitable for high-stress bearing areas, namely, the occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth. Composite is now the material of choice for buccal caries. As for patients who are bruxers, we have a few options. My own choice would be to place a gold or high-noble inlay, which most patients not to mention insurance companies will not pay for. We can also place a porcelain restoration – which would completely obliterate the opposing dentition, or fracture. Again these are tremendously expensive. We can also place a composite filling, for which the patient will definitely hate us, because they will either wear out within a week or fracture completely. Then we would have to remove the composite, and inevitably more tooth structure to place a new (probably a crown, this time) restoration. We can also let the tooth continue to decay, but that would eventually either require an extraction (most patients would prefer the nominal mercury exposure) or a root canal, then a post-core and crown (upwards of $1500, minimum). Lastly, we could place an amalgam for $75. If you were put in the same position, with similar economic restraints, what would you do Larry? If you have some secrets that you are holding from us morons in the American dental community, please reveal them to us! Help us out here, perhaps we are missing something terribly obvious. You see, I am damned if I do, damned if I don’t, don’t or don’t. Then I have to deal with people like you telling me how big of a quack I am for doing the best that I know how, without offering any good alternatives. Do you still wonder why dentists have a high suicide rate, Larry?
Your comments reveal a mistrust of dentists in general, I am curious as to why. Do you feel **all** dentists are similarly malicious? Or just the ones that use amalgam (almost all of them)?
Incidentally, I imagine in my practice, I will avoid amalgam altogether, even though I feel it is a superior restorative material, as well as a safe and affordable one. Composite resins are getting pretty strong nowadays, approaching the qualities of real tooth (amalgam is still quite a bit stronger). They are also quite esthetic. My school clinic is pushing posterior composites, such as Sur-Fil (a glass reinforced, packable resin composite). Anything that is too large for composite, I will probably treatment plan for a crown or an onlay. I am hoping that posterior composites will supplant amalgam, and think it will in the near future, just so I can stop hearing people freak out about it. I think the scare about amalgam in the teeth becomes just another source of obsession and hypochondriasis, which in my view are much more pathologic than the actual harm done by the mercury. Either way, I will not be sad to see it go.
Also, you said:
>>I would ask you this: "If mercury amalgams were being proposed today as an innovative restorative material for dental caries, do you think that they would get past the regulatory approval process in existence today?" I can guarantee you, they would not get past the committee stage, let alone get into animal trials.
Someone recently posed the same question about aspirin, and speculated that aspirin would likely not be deemed as safe for use. So I agree, amalgam would probably not even be given the chance to be used. But I am not so sure that would be a good thing. I still think aspirin is a great drug and safe, and still think that dental amalgam is a great material, and safe. The approval process is slow enough as it is, and getting slower. I think that the harm done by the over cautiousness of the regulatory groups is much more detrimental, and offsets the good they do by “protecting” us. Plus, I don’t think they are always right about things, e.g. they approved fenfluramine-phentermine combos in the recent past, only shortly later to find out they screwed up - big time. I don’t believe in a total Laissez-Faire attitude toward drug development, but believe that the process is much too slow as it stands.
Finally, the axiom of science you quoted is true, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. So by this, you seem to be conceding somewhat that there is pretty scant evidence for what you are claiming. I think it is only in the X-files or conspiracy theory type thinking that absence of evidence equals evidence. You even mentioned being aware of major, large epidemiological studies that failed to show correlations between amalgam and disease. How do you reconcile these findings with your beliefs?
Sure, you are entitled to opinions. Believe what you will. But in the process, please make sure not to scapegoat people (dentists) for diseases that we know very little about. Who knows, maybe small, chronic doses of mercury from amalgams will indeed turn out to be the root of all evil. When this evidence turns up, I will concede, and resign to hell, which will be my rightful inheritence, along with the other dentists who sold their souls to amalgam for a Lexus. But I just don’t believe this evidence exists or ever will.
Thanks,
Matt
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
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 15:41:27
In reply to Dental Amalgam (longer) » Larry Hoover, posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 14:33:45
> You quoted “The Rocky Mountain Research Institute” a couple of times. One of their articles was attempting to make a link between dental amalgam and Alzheimer’s disease. I thought that they pretty much had the etiology of Alzheimer’s nailed down; having to do with beta-amyloid plaques that accumulate in the brain. You are taking a very controversial and unsupported view on this one. And you will have to do better than one small study containing 48 people, performed by a highly biased “research” group.
I recall posting no article referencing amalgam vis a vis Alzheimer's. I have no idea what you're talking about.
> You quoted the same group as having done some research about a link between multiple sclerosis and amalgam. Boy, these guys are on a roll!
I suggest you re-read the article. It did not relate MS to amalgam, but associated psychological variables to amalgam within a selected population, i.e. subjects with MS. I included it to suggest that subjects with comorbidities may be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of mercury exposure. If only someone would do a similar study on depressives. I don't recall ever seeing one.
> Your comments reveal a mistrust of dentists in general, I am curious as to why. Do you feel **all** dentists are similarly malicious? Or just the ones that use amalgam (almost all of them)?
I don't hold dentists responsible for their training. I hold no negative opinions of dentists per se. Dentists are scientists, and scientists can be the most stubborn people on the planet, IMHO.
>I think the scare about amalgam in the teeth becomes just another source of obsession and hypochondriasis, which in my view are much more pathologic than the actual harm done by the mercury. Either way, I will not be sad to see it go.
I was very careful to suggest that somatization was a valid explanation for many who believe they have amalgam disease. However, that explanation cannot be used to suggest that there are no valid cases, which seems to be the case in the dental literature. I reviewed actual papers some years ago, a stack well more than a metre in height. I no longer have them (their title was part of the research contract), so I'm stuck with sourcing abstracts on the 'net right now. I didn't come to my concerns lightly.
>You even mentioned being aware of major, large epidemiological studies that failed to show correlations between amalgam and disease. How do you reconcile these findings with your beliefs?
I did so in my prior posting (I thought). It may be that there are only a small set of subjects whose sensitivity to mercury make their symptoms directly related to amalgam. Dilution by including these subjects in unselected populations would preclude obtaining significant findings. To paraphrase the axiom, the failure to find significance in a study does not show there was nothing significant to find.
> Sure, you are entitled to opinions. Believe what you will. But in the process, please make sure not to scapegoat people (dentists) for diseases that we know very little about. Who knows, maybe small, chronic doses of mercury from amalgams will indeed turn out to be the root of all evil. When this evidence turns up, I will concede, and resign to hell, which will be my rightful inheritence, along with the other dentists who sold their souls to amalgam for a Lexus. But I just don’t believe this evidence exists or ever will.See you there. <wink>
> Thanks,
>
> MattRegards,
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 15:48:19
In reply to For StJames » stjames, posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 15:20:21
I just want to be clear on one thing, Matt. I found it to be exceedingly ironic that Quackwatch called opponents of the use of mercury amalgam quacks, when the word was originally coined to describe proponents of its use.
Other than that descriptive posting, I have not nor will I ever use the word to describe dentists. I am sorry that you believe that I have made such use, but I did not.
Lar
Posted by stjames on May 8, 2003, at 16:55:49
In reply to For StJames » stjames, posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 15:20:21
> 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.
No decay, 100 is my best guess, as I remember
the doc finding 6 cavities every 6 months, ie 12X10 = ~100. My mother indicated she felt the
doc was a little over zelous in filling things
but later in life I had a consult with an Oral
Surgeon who indicated I had excellent care.
I do not think these were grooves as most were demonstrated by X-ray.
> >>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!Did they have those in the 70's ? I know kids get them today.
> 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.I HAVE NO DECAY !!!! Far too much money was put into my mouth and I am also a tooth snob, so my teeth are well cared for (heheh)
NO, I have no intention of removing the amalgams.
I grind too much for other options & am not convinced there is an issue here. (Remember Matt, I am the one who said this is a qwack)
Posted by leeran on May 8, 2003, at 18:04:10
In reply to For StJames » stjames, posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 15:20:21
I just got home from three hours in the dentist's chair. I'm not an atheist, but that expression "there are no atheists in foxholes" kept running through my mind during those 180 minutes (just substitute foxhole for dental chair).
I asked the dentist about his method of removing mercury (our conversation took place about three feet from the mercury warning sign) right before he started working. I asked specifically about removal/vapors, etc.
He explained the word amalgam (I already knew the meaning) and said he never even wears a mask when removing amalgam fillings . . .
What can you do? You're sitting there - ready to roll, plus, I trust this doctor. The words "blind faith" come to mind, but he's the absolute best dentist (IMO) I found listed on our dental plan (I did a lot of research before deciding choosing him from a list of about 180 providers in our area).
His comment (re: mercury) was that most women have five pounds of it in their breasts from all the fish they've eaten over the years (this guy is pretty outspoken and apparently feels comfortable making exaggerated statements around patients).
Once he started drilling he found that the back tooth and the one next to it (I don't know the corresponding numbers) were too far gone to support porcelain fillings so the plan changed to porcelain crowns midway through the work.
Even with a temporary structure in place I can see a nice difference in the one side of my mouth (I won't get as good of radio reception anymore) but I wouldn't go to the expense to ever have all of them removed until it became medically necessary. For one thing, I couldn't take that much time under the drill without sedation (which he offers but he didn't think was necessary for this situation).
I suppose the Lexapro is kicking in nicely because I was surprisingly calm before the appointment, and in a weird way, even during the procedure.
I told someone on this thread that I would report back so that's the news. I don't know that my opinions about mercury have changed. I certainly would prefer porcelain or resin in the future but $785 per tooth for a porcelain filling is pretty darned steep.
Posted by noa on May 8, 2003, at 19:16:18
In reply to Dental amalgam increases disease? Or just Hg level » Larry Hoover, posted by mattdds on May 5, 2003, at 14:10:04
FYI--As it happens, the news tonight reported that Congress is currently holding hearings about the mercury amalgam issue.
Posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 22:40:41
In reply to Re: the word quack » mattdds, posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 15:48:19
Larry,
As hard as it to admit (being the stubborn dental student that I am <wink>), that *is* pretty funny. I guess I am a quack after all, by definition!
I just read online somewhere that the word quack does indeed come from dentists in Northern Europe who would use silver-mercury fillings in the 1700's. The word "quaksilber", was the precursor to quicksilver - or mercury! Dentists who used amalgam were known as "quaksilber placers", or "quaks" for short.
I can't wait to tell my friends at school, they will really get a kick out of this one.
Perhaps this will relieve some of the stigma of being a "quak", and then we can feel better about ourselves. Misery loves company, and if we're all quacks (by definition), we have lots of it!
I must admit I feel a bit silly for getting offended. I was in too much of a hurry, and probably read what I wanted (or expected) to read, based on your other posts.
Thanks for the great exchange, BTW, I had fun!
Best,
Matt
Posted by Ron Hill on May 9, 2003, at 1:13:05
In reply to Re: Dental mercury is a real threat (long), posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2003, at 12:36:56
Posted by susan C on May 12, 2003, at 11:34:07
In reply to Thanks for the good info (as usual) in this thread (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by Ron Hill on May 9, 2003, at 1:13:05
I am posting, so I can get follow ups and come back to this thread, to read all the good information here...
I have been concerned about this issue, as I must have five lbs of this stuff in my mouth. I don't think there is a tooth without a filling or crown. I think I would have to have all my teeth removed and use dentures instead...oh dear oh dear. I wonder if the weight of the amalgum inserted in a filling is equal to the weight of the removed tooth tissue...
mouse dragging her mouth on the ground.
Posted by David Smith on May 14, 2003, at 22:14:42
In reply to Three hours in the chair, posted by leeran on May 8, 2003, at 18:04:10
Thanks for the followup Lee.
Glad you made it through okay and
Thank you for sharing so many details.
Now I know what to look for.
Blessings.
Posted by joebob on August 3, 2003, at 14:09:05
In reply to Re: Dental mercury is a real threat (long), posted by Larry Hoover on May 3, 2003, at 12:36:56
almost lost a kidney
had panic attacks
parathesia
memory lossnow have depression, anxiety
it's a long story but if someone really wants to know i will write more when time and mood allow
i had all mine removed, smartest thing i ever did for my health
mercury levels still high as are arsenic, per hair and urine tests
best,
joebob
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 4, 2003, at 8:36:50
In reply to i had mercury toxicity from my fillings » Larry Hoover, posted by joebob on August 3, 2003, at 14:09:05
Wow! A blast from the past. I'm glad someone brought this up again.
> almost lost a kidney
> had panic attacks
> parathesia
> memory loss
>
> now have depression, anxiety
>
> it's a long story but if someone really wants to know i will write more when time and mood allow
>
> i had all mine removed, smartest thing i ever did for my healthIt's on my list of things to do. I have other financial issues to deal with first, before I can afford it.
> mercury levels still high as are arsenic, per hair and urine tests
>
> best,
>
> joebobJoebob, use a selenium supplement. It will not remove mercury from your body, but it will detoxify the mercury that's already there. Because of the fact that you know you have substantial mercury exposure, I'd argue that you could take 400 mcg/day (twice what I normally suggest).
All the best,
Lar
Posted by sisyphus on November 26, 2003, at 23:03:09
In reply to Re: i had mercury toxicity from my fillings ?joebob, posted by Larry Hoover on August 4, 2003, at 8:36:50
Larry,
Very happy to have found this thread!
My teeth was filled with mercury when I was 8 and I remember that I got mental problem since 9. I think they are related, after reading the book "Dealing with Depression Naturally," talked about the "Dental Depression." I am now 29. I think I will have my filling removed asap. Other than selenium supplment, what would you suggest for me to detox? Or, is it possible to detox since it has been there for 21 years? Do u think my problem will be permanent? The book states that the filling will cause unique symthoms like extreme shyness, anxiety, timid, depression. I got all of these. Hope to here from you soon.
sisyphus.
Posted by katia on November 27, 2003, at 0:47:54
In reply to Re: i had mercury toxicity from my fillings » Larry Hoover, posted by sisyphus on November 26, 2003, at 23:03:09
Hi,
I've just got to say that when I was 28 I got all my mercury fillings removed and it did zilch for my depression.
Otherwise, with all the other health concerns surrounding it, it's probably best to remove them and they may indeed be an influence on your depression. They just weren't on mine. (i'm bipolar and 33).
good luck.
katia
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2003, at 16:44:54
In reply to Re: i had mercury toxicity from my fillings » Larry Hoover, posted by sisyphus on November 26, 2003, at 23:03:09
> Larry,
>
> Very happy to have found this thread!
>
> My teeth was filled with mercury when I was 8 and I remember that I got mental problem since 9. I think they are related, after reading the book "Dealing with Depression Naturally," talked about the "Dental Depression." I am now 29. I think I will have my filling removed asap. Other than selenium supplment, what would you suggest for me to detox? Or, is it possible to detox since it has been there for 21 years? Do u think my problem will be permanent? The book states that the filling will cause unique symthoms like extreme shyness, anxiety, timid, depression. I got all of these. Hope to here from you soon.
>
> sisyphus.People differ in both their sensitivity to mercury, and in how much mercury will leak from a dental restoration....if you're going to have the filling removed, ensure that the dentist doing so follows procedures which will minimize the amount of mercury you're exposed to during the removal.
Selenium supps remain the best method for protecting against the adverse effects of mercury. Chelation therapy is sometimes recommended, but I would only suggest it for acute exposure (as in an industrial accident or something), not chronic exposure from amalgam.
Reducing mercury exposure is a prudent thing to do, even if you don't feel noticeably better following the procedure.
Good luck,
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2003, at 5:08:40
In reply to Re: i had mercury toxicity from my fillings » Larry Hoover, posted by sisyphus on November 26, 2003, at 23:03:09
> the book "Dealing with Depression Naturally," talked about the "Dental Depression."
I'd just like to plug the double double quotes feature at this site:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#amazon
The first time anyone refers to a book without using this option, I post this to try to make sure he or she at least knows about it. It's just an option, though, and doesn't *have* to be used. If people *choose* not to use it, I'd be interested why not, but I'd like that redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7717.html
Thanks!
Bob
Posted by sisyphus on November 28, 2003, at 10:14:50
In reply to Re: i had mercury toxicity from my fillings ?Larry Hoover ?sisyphus, posted by Larry Hoover on November 27, 2003, at 16:44:54
Thank you for your advice.
I heard that vitamin E and Chlorella are useful for enhancing the effectiveness of selenium. Need I take them as well?
> > Larry,
> >
> > Very happy to have found this thread!
> >
> > My teeth was filled with mercury when I was 8 and I remember that I got mental problem since 9. I think they are related, after reading the book "Dealing with Depression Naturally," talked about the "Dental Depression." I am now 29. I think I will have my filling removed asap. Other than selenium supplment, what would you suggest for me to detox? Or, is it possible to detox since it has been there for 21 years? Do u think my problem will be permanent? The book states that the filling will cause unique symthoms like extreme shyness, anxiety, timid, depression. I got all of these. Hope to here from you soon.
> >
> > sisyphus.
>
> People differ in both their sensitivity to mercury, and in how much mercury will leak from a dental restoration....if you're going to have the filling removed, ensure that the dentist doing so follows procedures which will minimize the amount of mercury you're exposed to during the removal.
>
> Selenium supps remain the best method for protecting against the adverse effects of mercury. Chelation therapy is sometimes recommended, but I would only suggest it for acute exposure (as in an industrial accident or something), not chronic exposure from amalgam.
>
> Reducing mercury exposure is a prudent thing to do, even if you don't feel noticeably better following the procedure.
>
> Good luck,
> Lar
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2003, at 14:09:44
In reply to Re: i had mercury toxicity from my fillings » Larry Hoover, posted by sisyphus on November 28, 2003, at 10:14:50
> I heard that vitamin E and Chlorella are useful for enhancing the effectiveness of selenium.
I'd like to redirect follow-ups regarding alternative treatments to Psycho-Babble Alternative. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20031122/msgs/285574.html
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.