Dentists refusing to do costly treatments?

Of course practices evolve and are updated hence why dental amalgam is no longer used in many countries due to toxicity concerns.

I will try one more time, why are dental amalgams considered toxic enough to justify being disposed off in special hazard bins but yet deemed to be safe in a patient’s mouth?

That makes sense. I had one root canal and I could tell it was a very complex job. I've had a lot of dental work but that by far took the longest.

Unfortunately I was moronic and didn't care for the tooth properly so I had to have it pulled in Feb. (After about 17 years) So it cost me about 2k in total just to have a gap! Don't worry I've learned my lesson and my hygiene is much better now.

Christ, stop derailing the thread with the conspiracy theory YouTube nonsense. If you don't agree with what dentists are doing, don't go to them. Crack on with your own dental work, with your expert knowledge I'm sure you'll do a great job.

Not YouTube conspiracy but proven facts as backed up by hundreds of research studies.

iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/article_ZiffBibliography.pdf

I have asked for an explanation as to why dental amalgams are now considered toxic enough for the environment and must, by law, be disposed of in hazard bins but are somehow safe in a patients mouth? I’d really love to know the science behind this.

Thankfully I’m free to choose which dentist I let near my mouth.

Out of hours do emergency work only. They will offer an extraction of you are in pain but if you want to save the tooth they will refer you to your own dentist. My mum went for annexes that flared up on a Friday (of course) by Sunday she was climbing the walls. She got an emergency appointment at the hospital to see the OOH destiny. He said ‘I can extract the tooth and drain the abscess and you’ll be almost pain free, if you want to save that tooth you will need to wait and see your dentist!’ She told them to extract it.

Human waste goes in special bins, so do sharps, your logic makes no sense. Much like the 'evidence' you keep quoting. Good luck with your alternative dentistry.

Ehm… dental amalgam has its own legally binding disposal process that all dentists must comply with. This is different to sharps or human waste. This is because amalgams contain 50% mercury which is highly toxic. Please educate yourself.

So my question remains: why is it deemed toxic enough to have a special hazard disposal process and yet safe in a patients mouth?

I’ll bite. Dental amalgam fillings are stable and set hard in a mouth. The concern comes from drilling out old fillings, as there is an increased risk of mercury vapour and small crumbs breaking up during the drilling process. And we have high volume aspiration, ventilation, amalgam separators, specialised disposal containers, rubber dam and other measures to help mitigate the increased risks when removing.

but I agree with other PP. you are purposely derailing the thread.

I know it's done separately. So are sharps bins. So is human waste. The fact that something has to have a waste disposal process means that it's an issue if it were to be in general waste, not that it is harmful to humans - unless, following your logic, needles shouldn't be used on patients. Conspiracy logic perhaps that's your next target!

You can repeat your questions as much as you like, the dentists on here have given good answers, just because you disagree with them doesn't mean you have a right to demand they respond further. If you cant follow their answers, or don't wish to, that's on you. But it's very boring to hear the 'why won't you give me an answer I agree with!!!!' on a thread that is fuck all to do with your conspiracy crap.

Clearly uneducated as it’s been proven time and time again that mercury is released from amalgams once placed. I mean, mercury starts to vaporise at room temperature never mind 37C. The idea that it’s locked in is laughable. Even the FDA and dental bodies acknowledge this after years of denial. Frightening that you’re a dentist and don’t know this.

Plethora of research showing this…

Bjorkman, L; et al. Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam fillings.
J Dent Res, 75:38, A165, 1996.

1. Boyer, DB. Mercury Vaporization from Corroded Dental Amalgam. Dent Mater.

4:89-93, 1988.

1. Brune, D; et al. Gastrointestinal and in vitro release of copper, cadmium, indium,

mercury and zinc from conventional and copper-rich amalgams. Scand J Dent Res, 91:66-71, 1983.

1. Chan, KC; Svare, CW. Mercury Vapor Emission from Dental Amalgam. J Dent

Res, 51(2):555-9, 1972.

1. Cooley, RL; et al. Mercury Vapor Emitted During Ultraspeed Cutting of

Amalgam. J Indiana Dent Assoc, 57(2):28-31, 1978.

1. Cutright, DE; et al. Systemic mercury levels caused by inhaling mist during high-

speed amalgam grinding. J Oral Med, 28(4):100-4, 1973.

1. Dhuru, V; et al. Emission of mercury vapor from various amalgam specimens. J

Dent Res,

1. 192, A200, 1983.
2. DuPreez, IC; et al. Mercury release during polishing of amalgam restorations. J

Dent Res, 68(4):721, A31, 1989. 10. Emler, BF; Cardone, M. An assessment of Mercury in Mouth Air. J Dent Res., 64:247, A652, 1985. 11. Ferracane, J; et al. Time-dependent Dissolution of Amalgams into Saline Solution. J Dent Res, 65:192, A207. 12. Gay et al. Chewing Releases Mercury from Fillings. Lancet, 985, 5 May 1979. 13. Gjerdet, NR: et al. Porosity, Strength, and Mercury Content of Amalgam Made By Different Dentists in their Own Practice. Dent Mater. 1: 150-39 1985. 14. Hummert, TW; et al. Mercury in Solution Following Exposure of Various Amalgams to Carbamide Peroxides. Amer J Dent., 6(6):305-9, dec 1993. 15. Engle JH; et al. Quantitation of Total Mercury Released During Dental Procedures. Dent Mater, 8:176-180, 1992. 16. Lussi, A. Mercury Release From Amalgam Into Saliva: An In Vitro Study. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed., 103(6):722-, 1993. 17. Lussi, A; et al. Mercury and Copper Release From Amalgams in Different Soft Drinks. Dent Materials, 279-81, 1990. 18. Mahler, DB; et al. Hg Emission from Dental Amalgam as Related to the Amount of Sn in the Ag-Hg Phase. J Dent Res, 73(10):1663-8, 1994. 19. Malmstrom, C; et al. Amalgam-derived Mercury in Feces. Conference on Trace Elements in Health and Disease, Stockholm, 15-29 May, 1992. 20. Marek, M. Mercury Dissolution From Dental Amalgams In Solutions of Different Aggressiveness. J Dent Res., 77(SI-A):120, A115, 1980. 21. Marek, M. Acceleration of Corrosion of Dental Amalgam by Abrasion. J Dent Res, 62, 189, A179, 1983.22. Marek, M. The Release of Mercury from Dental Amalgam: The Mechanism and in Vitro Testing. J Dent Res, 1990. 23. Marek, M. The Effect of Tin on the Corrosion Behavior of the Ag-Hg Phase of Dental Amalgam and Dissolution of mercury. J Dent Res, 69(12):1786-90, 1990. 24. Marek, M. Interactions Between Dental Amalgams and the Oral Environment. Adv Dent Res, 6:100-9, 1992. 25. Marek, M. The Effect of the Electrode Potential on the Release of Mercury from Dental Amalgam. J Dent Res, 72(9):1315-9, 1993. 26. Marek, M. Electrode Reactions on Freshly Generated Fracture Surfaces of Dental Amalgam. A733, IADR, 1993. 27. Marek, M. Mercury Vapor Emission from Fresh Fracture Surfaces of Dental Amalgam. A26, IADR, I994. 28. Masi, JV. Corrosion of Restorative Materials: The Problem and the Promise. Symposium: Status Quo and Perspectives of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials, April 29-May 1, 1994. 29. Mathewson, RJ; Lu, KH. Influences of Clinical Factors on Marginal Adaptation and Residual Mercury Content of amalgam. J Dent Res, 54(1):104-9, 1975. 30. Mitchell, JA; et al. X-ray diffraction studies of mercury diffusion and surface stability of dental amalgam. J Dent Res, 34(5):744, 1955. 31. Naguib, EA; et al. Role of Fluoride on Corrodability of Dental Amalgams. Egypt Dent J, 40(4):909-18, Oct 1994. 32. Nimmo, A; et al. Particulate inhalation during the removal of amalgam restorations. J Prosth Dent, 63:228-33, 1990. 33. Okabe, T. Mercury in the structure of dental amalgam. Dent Materials, 3(1):1-7, 1987. 34. Olsson, S; et al. Release of Elements due to Electrochemical Corrosion of Dental Amalgam. J Dent Res, 73(1):33-43, 1994. 35. Patterson, JE; et al. Mercury In Human Breath From Dental Amalgams. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol., 34:459-68, 1985. 36. Rao, GS; et al. Comparative Salivary Dissolution of Mercury from Set Dental Amalgams. Feder Proceed, 45:441, A1667, 1986. 37. Reinhardt, JW; et al. Mercury vaporization during amalgam removal. J Prosth Dent, 59:62-4, 1983. 38. Reinhardt, JW; et al. Exhaled Mercury Following Removal and Insertion of amalgam Restorations. J Prosth Dent, 49(5):652-4, 1983. 39. Richards, JM; Warren, PJ. Mercury vapor released during the removal of old amalgam restorations. Brit Dent J, 159:231-2. 1985. 40. Robertello, FJ; et al. The Effect of Bleaching on Mercury Release From Amalgam. J Dent Res., 77(SI-A):243, A1102, 1998. 41. Sarkar, NK. Mechanism of beta-1 formation in conventional dental amalgam. J Dent Res, 73:104, A19, 1994. 42. Solis, A; et al. Mercury vapor Release from Amalgam After polishing. J Dent Res, 71, 284, A1424, 1992. 43. Svare, CM; Chan, KC. Effect of Surface Treatment on the Corrodibility of Dental Amalgam. J Dent Res, 51(1):44-6, 1972.44. Svare, CW; et al. Effect of Retainer Margin and Distribution of Mercury on Dental Amalgam mercury Vaporization Patterns. J Dent Res, 52(2):217-20, 1973. 45. Svare, CW; et al. Quantitative Measure of Mercury Vapor Emission from Setting Dental Amalgam. J Dent Res, 52(4):740-3, 1973. 46. Teixeira, L; et al. Printing of Mercury Distribution on the Surface of Dental Amalgams. JADA, 81:1159-62, 1970. 47. Von Fraunhofer, JA; Staheli, PJ. Corrosion of Dental Amalgam. Nature, 240:304-

@hiredgun and @Lollygaggle how about taking your tit for tat argument elsewhere?

Most of your sources there are at least 40 years old. One is 65 years old
The most recent is 28 years.
Don’t suppose you have anything more up to date?

My final comment ,
dental teams have higher blood levels of mercury , have lifetime exposure to amalgams both as fillings and every day in work.

Yet their morbidity and mortality rates (illness and death) are the same or better than the general population (except for occupational problems as described before. )

There are many toxic substances used routinely in dentistry . Many drugs or materials we use can kill or seriously injure .

In my practicing lifetime the way we handle eg nitrous oxide has changed and we now have scavenger systems in surgeries as teams using it were suffering health problems associated with it.

The way we handle methyl methacrylate has changed and is now used in fume cabinets , due to health problems for teams

Perborate , formocresol, is no longer used because of health problems for patients and dental staff.

x Ray exposures have decreased massively with the introduction of digital radiography and more accurate and tighter focusing

Dental amalgam formulation and use has changed and as other materials (which have their own problems) have improved and environmental concerns have increased its use is being phased out , rather like silicate fillings in the 70s , celluloid fillings in the 50s , vulcanite in the 40s , etc etc

Dental material science is not preserved in aspic and all dentists study it throughout their practicing lifetime . The MHRA licences and controls use of dental materials and is a totally independent body medical and dental staff have a legal duty to report adverse reactions to amalgam . There are a tiny amount reported https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dental_amalgam_toxicity_reports

The utter lack of evidence the dental teams are dying younger or developing diseases more often than the general population despite an amalgam exposure hundreds/thousands times higher than the general population is a great longitudinal and extensive study of amalgam safety . The idea that the dental team would change use and practice for every other filling material, drug etc used in dental surgery except for some , unknown reason , amalgam is clearly not logical especially as dental teams would be at greatest risk.

I’m sure you understand that research is based upon novelty and receives funding as such. When there have been so many studies done that say the same thing, it becomes fact. Why would a researcher research something that’s already known?

You seem to be of the same mindset that because a study is old, it therefore has zero merit. Watson & Crick published their famous paper on the structure of DNA in 1953 and nobody says “oh that’s from over half a century ago, I wonder if DNA is still a double helix.”

Same with Newton, Einstein etc… that’s not how science works.

But the fact that amalgams are not stable and mercury is leaked from them is fact enough that the FDA recognises this as do many other regulatory bodies. Not sure why you don’t!

I’m also sure that you realise research and development evolves over time, and what was once a common practice back in 1970, or a theoretical conclusion will have been adapted and retested or abandoned, cross referenced, peer reviewed etc over the years.
in the same way that we once thought the earth was flat.

anyway that’s my final comment on the matter.

But the original research was done over a period of decades and it all came to the same conclusion: amalgams leak mercury. It wasn’t just one or two spurious studies but from many independent researchers.

Which is why they’re banned in many countries, some for many years and why the FDA recognises this fact. The evidence is overwhelming and thankfully dentists are finally being stopped from using this dangerous material.

The war on amalgam is finally being won, no thanks to dentists like you.

Nice pic of you with your tin hat on btw!

Sorry, didn’t see your comment. There are also many studies showing that dental workers are indeed harmed by dental amalgams. Hardly surprising and they are arguably some of the biggest victims in all of this.

Mercury Hazards in Dental Practice.
104:489-90, 1982.
Cook, TA; Yates, PO. Fatal Mercury Intoxication in Dental Surgery
Assistant. Brit Dent J., 127:553-5, 1969.
Djerassi, E; Berova, N. The possibilities of allergic reactions from silver
amalgam restorations. Internat Dent J, 19(4):481-8, 1969.
Echeverria, D; et al. Behavioral Effects of Low-Level Exposure to Hg0
Among Dentists. Neurotoxicol Teratol, 17(2):161-8, 1995.
Echeverria, D; et al. Neurobehavioral Effects From Exposure to Amalgam
Hg0: New Distinctions Between Recent Exposure and Hg Body Burden. FASEB
J., 12:971-80, 1998.
Eedy, DJ; et al. Elevated T cell subpopulations in dental students. J
Prosthc Dent, 63:593-6, 1990.
Eggleston, DW. Effect of Dental Amalgam and Nickel Alloys on T-
Lymphocytes: Preliminary Report. J Prosth Dent., 51(5):617-23, 1984.
Finne, K; et al. Oral Lichen Planus and Contact Allergy to Mercury. Int J
Oral Surg., 11:236-9, 1982.
Forsell, M; et al. Mercury Content in Amalgam Tattoos of Human Oral
Mucosa and Its Relation to Local Tissue Reactions. Eur J Oral Science,
106(1):582-7, Feb 1998.
Hultman, P; et al. Adverse Immunological Effects and Autoimmunity
Induced by Dental Amalgam and Alloy in Mice. FASEB J., 8:1183-90, 1994.
Hultman, P; et al. Activation of the Immune System and Systemic
Immune Complex Deposits in Brown Norway Rats With Dental Amalgam
Restorations. J Dent Res., 77(6):1415-25, Jun 1998.
Iyer, K; et al. Mercury Poisoning in a Dentist. Arch Neurol, 33:788:90,
1976.
197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. James, J; et al. Oral Lichenoid Reactions Related to Mercury Sensitivity.
Brit J Oral Maxillofac Surg., 25:474-80, 1987.
Katsunuma, T; et al. Exercise Induced Anaphylaxis: Improvement After
Removal of Amalgam in Dental Caries. Ann Allergy, 64:472-5, 1990.
Laine, J; et al. Resolution of Oral Lichenoid Lesions After Replacement of
Amalgam Restorations in Patients Allergic to Mercury Compounds. JAMA,
267(21):2880, 3 Jun 1992.
Lundstrom, IM. Allergy and Corrosion of Dental Materials in Patients
With Oral Lichen Planus. Int J Oral Surg., 13:16, 1984.
Miller, EG; et al. Prevalence of Dental Materials in Dental Students. J
Prosth Dent., 58(2):235-7, 1987.
Mori, T; et al. Mercury Sensitization Induced by Environmental Exposure.
Nipon Eiseigaku Zasshi. 52(4):661-6, Jan 1988.203. 204. 205. 206. 207. Ngim, CH; et al. Chronic Neurobehavioural Effects of Elemental Mercury
in Dentists. Brit J Indust Med, 49:782-90, 1992.
Ostman, P-O; et al. Amalgam Associated Oral Lichenoid Reactions:
Clinical and Histologic Changes After Removal of Amalgam. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod., 81:459-65, 1996.
Shapiro, IM; et al. Neurophsiological and Neuropsychological Function in
Mercury Exposed Dentists Lancet, 1147-50, 22 May 1982.
Shipp, II; Shapiro, IM. Mercury Poisoning in Dental Practice. Comp Cont
Educ., 4:107-110, 1983.
Stofen, D. Dental amalgam - a poison in our mouth? Toxicology, 2:355-8,
1974.
208. Stopford, W. Mercury Intoxication Among Dental Personnel. JAMA,
209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 250(6):822, 1983.
Taskinen, H; et al. A Possible Case of Mercury Related Toxicity Resulting
From the Grinding of Old Amalgam Restorations. Scand J Work Environ Health,
15:302-4, 1989.
Traub, EF; Holmes, RH. Dermatitis and Stomatitis From the Mercury of
Amalgam Fillings. Arch Derm Syph., 38:349-57, 1938.
Weaver, T; et al. An Amalgam Tattoo Causing Local and Systemic
Disease. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path., 63:137-40, 1987.
White, RR; Brandt, RL. Development of Mercury Hypersensitivity
Among Dental Students. JADA, 92:1204-7, 1976.
Wronski, R; Hartmann, F. Uber Eine Besondere Verlaufsform der
Panarteritis Nodosa bei Chronisch Scleichender Quecksibervergiftung. Dutsch
Med Wschr., 102:323, 1977.
Ziff, MF. Documented Clinical Side-Effects to Dental Amalgam. Adv

Aaarrgghhhhhh!!!!!