Comments on: US Government Gets a “D” for Handling of Lead in Dental Products

By: Bennett Napier

Bennett Napier — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:08:12 +0000

On behalf of the NADL, I appreciate the continued editorial coverage from Dr. Du Molin and his staff on this important subject. Obviously, there are many layers and perspectives to this continued story.

Some of the next key steps in this journey, are:

1) Potential action such as Congressional hearings by the U.S. House Sub Committee on Oversights and Investigations
2) Further review and potential action by the ADA Standards Committee on Dental Products to examine appropriate lead levels in dental work and for other heavy metals

Two states, Florida and South Carolina have already passed state legislation that requires both material and point of origin disclosure to dentists and that such information will be available to the patient. Another ten states are considering such legislation in their state dental practice acts.

It is important to note that the issue of laboratory outsourcing is not exclusive to dental laboratories. Dental schools and large group dental chains also outsource their laboratory work to foreign countries.

The issue at hand is not where a product is made but whether or not the the individual making the prosthesis is competent and properly tranined, the laboratory facility meets accepted and required FDA quality standards and the materials are appropriate and safe for use.

NADL looks forward to continued work with the ADA, and government bodies, at both the state and federal level to foster a process that is beneficial for all parties, with clear vision that the patient be the prime beneficiary.

Thank you for your continued coverage on this topic.

Respectfully,

Bennett Napier,CAE
Co Executive Director
NADL

By: Jeff Stronk

Jeff Stronk — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:00:19 +0000

you haven’t done your homework completely. The NADL was proactive at least 2 years ago on this very subject. Dental Labs have never been regulated, and the NADL has worked towards that goal. With regulation the lead story would have never occured. They saw the writing on the wall for potential problems and tried to head them off. You are late to the party. I give you a D.

By the way, thats a nice haircut in your picture. Was your stylist licensed? They say the difference between a good haircut and a bad one is 3 days. Thats on hair which will grow back. Whats the difference between a good crown and a bad one?

The NADL tried to contact the head of the ADA as they initially heard about the story breaking, but was met with a wall of arrogance. They wanted to work with the ADA on this together. The ADA still didn’t have their facts right as of 3 weeks ago. Why are they conducting their own tests? Don’t they believe the impartial testing done by the reputable labs already being used? I’m having a hard time understandingwhy the better grade for them. The Doctor bypassed American labs and sent directly to China on the tainted case.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:28:36 +0000

I think the ADA will do anything to protect dental product manufacturers who, in turn, reward organized dentistry with grants, advertising, good PR, meeting sponsorship, freebies and more which gives organized dentistry the power and money to get laws passed that benefit dentists not consumers.

So I don’t trust anything coming out of the ADA. It’s incredible that our tax-payer funded employees at the CDC are always letting the ADA take the lead on most oral health issues when the ADA is simply a union whose members come first. The CDC is supposed to be protecting us not the ADA and the corporations who profit from the ADA.

I think we can all save a lot of money without health-robbing consequences if the oral health section of the CDC is shut down. It does no independent research or thought.

Of course, the FDA should be the lead agency on this.

Thank goodness for the few investigative journalists who are still doing the job the media is supposed to do.