-
-
Online Tutorials
Mercury Dental Fillings: A Controversial Topic
In this poll, we asked dentists: Does your practice place amalgam fillings?
It’s getting hot in here! In a heated debate over the safety or dangers of mercury, dentists were passionately split over the issue of amalgam. Fifty-two percent of dentists in our poll responded, “No, we are no longer using amalgam.” The other 48% replied, “Yes, we are still placing amalgam fillings.”
There is a huge difference between general dentists and specialists on the issue of amalgam. About one out of two general dentists still uses mercury amalgam, whereas as fully four out of five specialists are using amalgam. In support of amalgam, specialists cited the lack of scientific evidence proving its toxicity and the superiority of amalgam in certain situations.
“Amalgam is a durable and cost effective restorative material,” said one Colorado prosthodontist. “I believe dentists who refuse to use mercury amalgam are misinformed.” A prosthodontic colleague from Kentucky agreed: “Dentists who advocate elimination of dental amalgam are building their practice at the expense of the rest of the profession. Dental amalgams are perfectly safe.”
A Pennsylvania dentist disagreed. “No dentist should be placing these. Porcelain is safer, healthier, and not Civil War era dentistry. The insurance companies love amalgam because it is cheap, period. Time for a change. I can’t believe there are dentists out there still placing amalgam. They should be ashamed.”
Location was not highly correlated with amalgam usage, but it is worth noting that suburban dentists were least likely to use amalgam. “I practice in an affluent town,” commented a general dentist from suburban New Jersey. “Amalgam fillings would not be acceptable to my patients.”
Dentists are so interested in this issue that a record number of dentists responded to this survey. With the ADA supporting amalgam’s safety, health and consumer groups touting its toxicity, and the FDA still refusing to make an official ruling, it’s hard to know whom to believe.
Nonetheless, next week I’ll be weighing in with my opinions on the matter. If there’s anything you’d like to tell me, please post your thoughts!
Post a comment
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
I wonder how many of the “holistic” and “mercury free” practitioners make it a point to tell all their patients about the estrogen congeners present in the resin composites they are using. Besides, most dentists either DO NOT have the skills or take the necessary time to place a high quality, well bonded, anatomically shaped resin composite restoration that has good occlusal and proximal contacts.
I don’t know why in only this website it is inflammatorily called MERCURY amalgam instead of SILVER amalgam, because it isn’t called the former in any textbook I have ever seen.
People scared of SILVER amalgam should beware. They get more mercury in fish than from their amalgams. I guess they’ll have to go back to RED MEAT!!
Pre-proportioned capsules of amalgam of the last twenty-plus years are vastly better than amalgam made in the pre-capsule era before the 1970’s or early 80’s. They are strong, easily placed (especially important for dentists with amateur skills) and relatively inexpensive. Dentists with higher level skills can make them look anatomic, silvery and shiny–just like a casting.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
In September 2006, I was on dying, unable to walk or speak. I found out about mercury amalgams fillings in my mouth had them removed and now i am out of the wheelchair, I can speak again. The mercury fillings caused some residual electrical damage. Dentist who advocate for mercury dental amalgams should be tried and placed in the electrical chair. So many lives have been damaged, so many people have died and are still dying from this poison placed in their mouths. Their own dental handbooks indicate many of the symptoms that many people suffer.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:25 am
I have read a lot from both sides of this debate. On the pro-amalgam side, the best argument seems to be ‘we have placed these for years – so they must be safe!’, but there are equally dubious claims against their use. What we do know is that mercury is an extremely powerful toxin. We also know with certainty that it leaches into the mouths, and that our bodies have to remove it – daily. To say it is safe is a very sweeping statement – maybe it is at 2 or 3 small fillings. Can the same be said for someone with 20 fillings, who grinds their teeth at night, and who also consumes a large amount of fish?
The ’safe’ amounts of mercury released are all relative – yes, our bodies can dispose of an amount of this mercury, but how much, and at what cost to other natural processes?
Someone who is already ill, or who has limited ability to cleanse their body of toxins may not fare so well – especially at the higher levels of exposure. It is this that concerns me – amalgam is certainly not killing everyone it is placed in – that would be patently obvious. It may, however, be producing much more subtle symptoms, and only after years of chronic exposure.
What we need is more unbiased, ‘gold standard’ research into the effect amalgam can have on general health. To simply state they are safe, in any quantity, and in every person, is at best dangerous, and at worst irresponsible.