Does Your Dentist Fill your Teeth
Or have you become a Toxic Waste Dump

Robert Gammal BDS

Introduction

The most Dental Association claim that different forms of mercury have different degrees of toxicity and imply that mercury from dental amalgam is harmless. The bulk of the scientific research on the other hand shows a different reality. All forms of mercury are toxic. Elemental mercury, the type derived from dental amalgam, is totally bio-available - in other words it is absorbed by biological systems. Mercury from amalgam fillings has been shown to be neurotoxic, embryotoxic, mutagenic , teratogenic , immunotoxic and clastogenic . It is capable of causing immune dysfunction and auto-immune diseases.

When asked if there was any safe level of mercury, Dr Lars Friberg who was the world's leading authority on mercury poisoning and was Chief Adviser to the World Health Organisation on mercury safety answered:

"No, there is no safe level of mercury, and no one has actually shown that there is a safe level. I would say mercury is a very toxic substance."

Increasing public awareness of the dangers associated with the use of dental amalgam is leading more and more people to seek the services of dentists who are practicing a safer form of bio-compatible dentistry. Most people by now are aware that the silver fillings in their mouths should more accurately be called mercury fillings as they are made of about 50% mercury and only about 35% silver.   Amalgam is a mixture of an alloy of Silver, Tin, Zinc and Copper with an equal amount of Mercury. These fillings have been in use for about 180 years originating in England and spreading to Europe and America. At the time they gained immediate acceptance by the dentists as they provided a cheap and reasonably effective alternative to any other filling techniques of the time.

"In America during the 1800s, concern about the possible mercury toxicity caused the American Society of Dental Surgeons to make mercury usage an issue of malpractice, mandating that its members sign an oath not to use mercury-containing materials. However, use of mercury fillings increased because it offered dentists an economic advantage. The fillings were also user friendly and durable in the mouth. By 1856, the American Society of Dental Surgeons was forced to disband because of dwindling membership over the mercury filling issue. In its place rose the American Dental Association, founded by those who advocated silver amalgam - mercury use in dentistry. ' Again in the 1920s, a controversy erupted after the publication of articles and letters by a German chemistry professor, Alfred Stock, who attacked mercury filling usage for possible toxic effects. That debate abated and the dental profession's opinion still remains unchanged.

Today, 182 years later, the American Dental Association has amended its code of ethics to make the removal of serviceable mercury fillings an issue of unethical conduct, if the reason for removal is to eliminate a toxic material from the human body and if this recommendation is made solely by the dentist. . In the Association's view, a dentist is 'ethical' to place the mercury material and recommend its safety. However, if the dentist suggests that mercury fillings are potentially harmful or that exposure to unnecessary mercury can result, then the dentist is acting 'unethically'."

The dental authorities tell us that it is a stable material. They suggest that the mercury is locked into the fillings. As recently as 1997 the Victorian branch of the Australian Dental Association wrote to a patient and said, regarding the release of mercury from amalgam:

"amalgam fillings are not and never have been a potential source. There is no recognized scientific body, world wide, that would contradict that statement. Free mercury does not exist in amalgam, which is an alloy formed in the mixing process, and cannot break down into elemental mercury or dangerous mercury compounds as it is molecularly linked to the other component metals."

This statement is blatantly false. By definition an amalgam is a mixture of one or more metals with mercury. It is not an alloy - it is a mixture.  As such the whole substance has free mercury as part of its components. To suggest that all scientific bodies would agree that mercury is locked in to these fillings is clearly in disregard of the World Health Organisation for starters. As you will see there are many scientific bodies who would strongly disagree with the Australian Dental Association statement. In fact the statements made by the dental authorities in this country have no support from any scientific organisation in Australia. There are reports by committees of various trade organisations who claim to have reviewed the scientific literature and decided that amalgam is safe. These organisations include the Swedish Medical Health Council, and the Federation Dentaire International. It is important to remember that these are trade organisations - they are NOT scientific organisations. Their reports are not peer reviewed scientific papers.

The Australian Dental Association have also claimed support for the safety of amalgam from some rather prestigious organisations in Australia. These include the Australian College of Physicians and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Australian College of Physicians have not to date supplied any reports or studies on amalgam, but instead take the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council. In August 1997 the National Health and Medical Research Council withdrew totally their only statement on amalgam safety. The new position statement from the NHMRC in 2002, reference the ADA as one of their sources of information.  The ADA reference the NHMRC as their source of information.  INTERSTING!

Note that the Australian Dental Association is NOT a scientific organization - it is a trade organization.  Recently a court case in the USA saw a patient trying to sue the American Dental Association, a manufacturer and a dentist for poisoning him with mercury from amalgam fillings. The American Dental Association were let off by issuing the following statement:

"The American Dental Association (ADA) owes no legal duty of care to protect the public form allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury." (Note that in this paragraph the letters ADA refers to the American Dental Association)

None the less the Australian Dental Association has its own certification for dental products and you will find that dental amalgam is listed as one of the 'certified products'. This certification is only by a trade organization for its members. It is not a certification of safety nor does it apply to any Australian standards on safety.

The American Dental Association make the following point to support their position:

"The strongest and most convincing support we have for the safety of dental amalgam is the fact that each year more than 1,100 million amalgam fillings are placed in the United States"

This anecdotal, unscientific statement is to support a position for which they cannot present one scientific paper to demonstrate that amalgam is toxicologically safe. As Carl Sagan points out "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Figures released from the Gold Institute in Washington show that America and Japan use proximately 100 metric tons of silver per year for the fabrication of dental material. (ie amalgam) In contrast the world wide usage of silver for dental x-rays is only 2.1 metric tonnes. Are there other vested interests involved in maintaining the status quo?

The symbiosis between the dental and industrial communities and their scientific journals by Bengtsson, Ulf is a great site to overview some of the vested interests within the dental community. http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/ybftBEN95a.html

In Australia dental amalgam is listed by the TGA as a "dental device". There is no requirement in this listing that ensures toxicological safety. As with many areas of dentistry we are supposed to consider teeth as independent units, separate from the rest of the body. In America also it does not have FDA approval.

In reality dental amalgam is an implant into living tissue!

Mechanical Arguments Vs Systemic Disease

Another common argument given for the continued use of amalgam is that it is mechanically better than the alternatives, it is cheaper and easier to use. Since when does an argument based on mechanics take precedence over an argument about systemic poisoning!

Amalgam fillings do not stick to the tooth. To retain the filling in the tooth, the cavity must be prepared with 'undercuts'. These undercuts not only lock in the amalgam filling but also cut off the nutrient supply to the dentine above the cut. Therefore the tooth structure above and to the side of the filling becomes brittle.

All metals in the mouth will undergo some corrosion. Amalgam also corrodes at a reasonably fast rate. When amalgam corrodes it also expands and it does so in all directions. The force created by this expansion will often create minute fractures in the tooth that is already more brittle due to the shape of the cavity preparation. At this stage the patient returns to the dentist to report that all they were eating was some soft bread and the tooth broke!

To repair such a problem, the dentist will usually drill a small hole into the dentine and insert a self-tapping screw - called a pin. The pin is reinforcement for the amalgam filling which will go back in. Even if this pin is made of titanium it will undergo corrosion when in contact with amalgam. Again the corrosion will cause an enlargement of the pin (sometimes up to five times its diameter) which will then crack the tooth further - but this time lower down the root surface. This tooth is now a candidate for a crown because the filling, which has to go back into the tooth, is now so large that it cannot sustain the forces of chewing for very long.

Composite fillings do stick to the tooth. They are bonded chemically and mechanically to the tooth. They do not require a cavity, which is undercut and therefore do not require such a large or damaging cavity. In fact a composite filling can be used to rebuild a broken cusp without the use of pins or other mechanical support. I personally have not used a pin for years and have had great success with such restorations.

Studies comparing the fracture resistance of the tooth when filled with amalgam or composite indicate that amalgam will weaken the tooth structure whereas bonded composite fillings will strengthen the tooth. There is absolutely NO reason to continue the use of mercury amalgam!

The dental literature contains many references which demonstrate that composite resins are better than amalgam from a mechanical viewpoint. There is no justification that amalgam is a better filling material - the dental authorities that make this claim have obviously not read their own research. , , , , , , , , ,

Quintessence International is one of the most respected international dental journals. In 1995 the editor-in-chief of Quintessence (Volume 26, Number 3,1995), Dr Richard Simonsen wrote:

"Amalgam should never be used as a restorative material in paediatric dentistry."
Why? Because better alternatives are available.

"Amalgam should never be used as a first time restorative material."
Why? Because better alternatives are available.

"Move Over Amalgam - At Last"

This sentiment is echoed by Dr. Harold Loe, the Director of the National Institute of Dental Research ( NIDR), who stated in the September, 1993 edition of "Dental Products Report":

"That first filling is a critical step in the life of a tooth. Using amalgam for the first filling requires removing a lot of the tooth substance, not only diseased tooth substance but healthy tooth substance as well. So, in making the undercut you sacrifice a lot, and this results in a weakened tooth. The next thing you know the tooth breaks off, and you need a crown. Then you need to repair the crown...and so it continues to the stage where there is no more to repair and you pull the tooth. With the first filling you should do something that can either restore the tooth or retain more healthy tooth substance. Use new materials-composites or materials you can bond to the surface without undercuts. You can do this with little removal of the tooth substance so that the core of the tooth is still there."

 

What Dentists are Taught about Amalgam

· As dentists we are given very specific training in how to handle dental amalgam safely:

Do no touch amalgam with bare hands as the mercury can enter the body through the skin.
Use good through ventilation as the mercury vapour produced from amalgam is easily absorbed into the body by inhalation.
Amalgam cut out of teeth and that left over from filling the teeth must be stored under photographic fixer in a sealed glass container. The high sulphur content of the solution helps to prevent release of mercury vapour into the atmosphere.
It is illegal to dispose of waste amalgam into the sewerage or drain water as it will pollute the environment.
Specialists in this field must dispose of waste amalgam as Toxic Waste.
Mercury spills must be cleaned immediately and must not be vacuumed as this will vaporize the mercury.

Therefore the only safe and legal place to keep this toxic waste, is in the mouth of a living person!

It is interesting to note that every crematorium chimney spews out about 11kg of mercury per year into the environment.

If the mercury vapour levels in a factory were as high as levels found in some people's mouths, the factory would be closed down. If you have amalgams in your mouth you can consider yourself to be a toxic waste dump!

In the 1994 Panorama editorial DR BOYD HALEY (University of Kentucky) is quoted as saying;

"If you have something that's been put in your mouth that you can't dispose of in a waste basket without breaking environmental protection laws, there's no point in keeping it around, there's no point in taking that type of risk - there's no point in exposing people to any level of mercury toxicity if you don't have to."

In the same program Dr Haley continues :

"We can't go inside a living human being and look at their brain, so we have to work outside, and do scientific experiments such as we've done. And to the best that we can determine with these experiments, mercury is a time-bomb in the brain, waiting to have an effect. If it's not bothering someone when they're young, especially when they age it can turn into something quite disastrous."

How much mercury comes out?

Mercury escape from amalgam all of the time. Increase in temperature, friction and electrical currents will cause an increase in the release of mercury vapour from amalgam throughout the life of the filling. Every time you have a hot drink, chew or grind your teeth the levels of mercury coming from the amalgams will be elevated. This elevated level remains for about 90 minutes.33 Thus most of us on a regular cycle of eating and tooth grinding will be living with a permanently elevated level of mercury vapour in our mouths.

In 1991 the World Health Organisation released their report on environmental mercury - Criteria 118. This was the first time that dental amalgam had been considered by WHO as a source of dietary mercury. Their conclusion was that dental amalgam constituted the greatest source of mercury to the general population and that there was no level of mercury vapour that was found to be harmless.

The WHO estimated that dietary contibution of mercury on a daily basis was;

Air & Water               0 mcg/day
Other Foods             0.3 mcg/day
Fish & Seafood         2.3 mcg/day
Dental Amalgam       3 - 17mcg/day

In 2003 the WHO revised their estimates for dental amalgam to 1 - 27 mcg/day

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the USA, stated in 1990

"Long-term exposure to either organic or inorganic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetuses."

"Short-term exposure to high levels of inorganic and organic mercury will have similar health effects; but full recovery is more likely after short-term exposures, once the body clears itself of the contamination."

In other words the type of poisoning you will get from your amalgam fillings is more dangerous than a single short acute exposure.

The dental authorities claim only minute amounts of mercury are released from dental amalgam. This is true. It is important however to put this small amount into a context of toxicological effects. 1 microgram is 0.000001 of a gram. The number of zeros after a decimal point has absolutely no meaning toxicologically. In comparison the oral reference dose used by Health Canada reveals the lowest TDI (Tolerable Daily Intake) of Dioxin is 10 picogramms - 0.000,000,000,0001. Perhaps the dental authorities would look at such a small amount as insignificant also?   

See Health Canada's comments in this regard.

As professor Vimy points out; "It is estimated that the average individual, with eight biting surface mercury fillings, is exposed to a daily dose uptake of about 10ug mercury from their fillings. Select individuals may have daily doses 10 times higher (Lou) because of factors which exacerbate the mercury vaporisation. These factors include frequency of eating, chronic gum chewing, chronic tooth grinding behavior (usually during sleep), the individual's chewing pattern, consumption of hot foods and drinks, and mouth and food acidity Corroborating human autopsy evidence , showed that brain and kidney tissues contained significantly higher amounts of mercury in individuals who had mercury fillings".

In fact autopsy studies have shown that the level of mercury in the brain is directly proportional to the number of amalgam fillings in the mouth.16,29,31

Canada Health

In 1995 the Richardson Report was released by the Canadian government. It states quite clearly that for people with amalgam fillings they will be getting more than their tolerable daily intake of mercury if they have more than the following number of fillings: 1 filling in children, 3 in teenagers and 4 in adults. , This was enough for Canada health to issue the following directives regarding the use of dental amalgam:

1. Non-mercury filling materials should be considered for restoring the primary teeth of children where the mechanical properties of the material are suitable.

2. Whenever possible, amalgam fillings should not be placed in or removed from the teeth of pregnant women.

3. Amalgam should not be placed in patients with impaired kidney function.

4. In placing and removing amalgam fillings, dentists should use techniques and equipment to minimize the exposure of the patient and the dentist to mercury vapour, and to prevent amalgam waste from being flushed into municipal sewage systems.

5. Dentists should advise individuals who may have allergic hypersensitivity to mercury to avoid the use of amalgam. In patients who have developed hypersensitivity to amalgam, existing amalgam restorations should be replaced with another material where this is recommended by a physician.

6. New amalgam fillings should not be placed in contact with existing metal devices in the mouth, such as braces.

7. Dentists should provide their patients with sufficient information to make an informed choice regarding the material used to fill their teeth, including information on the risks and benefits of the material and suitable alternatives.

8. Dentists should acknowledge the patient's right to decline treatment with any dental material.

This does not leave many people who can safely handle dental mercury amalgam!

(see also the implications of the contraindications posted by Caulk Company)

Mercury is a cumulative poison. It stays in your body and the levels are topped up continuously. This type of poisoning is called Micromercurialism. The earliest symptoms are sub-clinical neurological - fatigue, headaches, forgetfulness, reduced short term memory, poor concentration, shyness and timidity, confusion, rapid mood swings, unprovoked anger, depression, suicidal tendencies. , ,

In 1979 The New York Sate Dental Journal ran an article about mercury toxicity. Here is an abstract:

"The symptoms of mercury poisoning from chronic inhalation develop gradually and thus, may be difficult to notice. With the exception of tremor, the symptoms may be ignored by the victim or attributed to other causes. This lack of awareness is particularly likely in the case of erethism, a condition characterized by; irritability, outbursts of temper, excitability, · shyness, resentment of criticism, headache, fatigue, and indecision. Erethism is the most difficult manifestation of mercury poisoning to evaluate, especially if tremors are absent, and its symptoms may be attributed to anxiety or neuroasthenia.

Other general symptoms associated with mercury poisoning include weakness, unusual fatigue, loss of weight, loss of appetite, insomnia and gastrointestinal disturbances.

A condition known as Micromercurialism, is said to account for psychological changes observed in persons frequently exposed to low concentrations of mercury in the air, concentrations found in the majority of dental offices surveyed. The syndrome is characterized by decreased productivity, loss of memory, loss of self confidence, depression, fatigue and irritability .."

A variety of scientific studies indicates that 20mcg to 150mcg of mercury vapour is released into the mouth of someone with amalgam fillings. 100mcg of mercury vapour is 500 times greater than the level quoted by the USEPA (0.3m /m3 ) as safe. It is 3,300 times greater than the level regarded as an acute exposure. i.e. 0.02mcg/m3 is known to effect your health when the exposure is only transient. Note that the ATSDR's Minimal Risk Level for chronic exposure (that derived from amalgam) is even less than this at 0.014mg/m3

It is estimated that an amalgam filling will release up to half of its mercury content over a ten year period (50% corrosion rate) For a one gram filling this is equivalent to 136mcg of mercury per day. Paints which contained mercury had to be taken off the market after releasing only 2-3mcg/m3

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service have listed on their Internet site the top 20 hazardous substances. Mercury is number 3 after arsenic and lead. It ranks above DDT, Dieldrin and Cadmium. This material is implanted into millions of people throughout Australia.

Dental Amalgam Is Neither Safe or Effective

Where does the Mercury go?

Retention of mercury in the body is estimated to be 1mcg/filling/day.44, 45 

Up to 80% of inhaled mercury vapour is absorbed through the lungs.46

A percentage of mercury vapour adheres to the lining of the nose and mouth and is transported directly into the brain.39 

Mercury from amalgam easily crosses the blood brain barrier and damages the whole of the central nervous system. 39  

Some mercury is also transported along the nerve fibres (retrograde axonal transport) back to the brain.
Mercury has been found all the way down the spinal chord. 39  
This may result in symptoms similar to Motor Neuron Disease and sensations of pain, itching and tingling throughout the body.

The levels of mercury in the brain are directly proportional to the number of fillings in the mouth.41,43,45

Minute amounts of mercury in the brain will cause the same type of damage as is found in the brains of patients with Alzheimer's Disease.   Low levels of mercury in the brain will severely disturb cellular function and reduce the growth of nerve fibres. 39    Professor Boyd Haley, from Kentucky University Centre for Ageing, said on a 1994 Panorama interview; " there is no doubt in my mind that low levels of mercury, present in the brain, could cause the normal cell death and that this could lead to a dementia which would be similar to Alzheimer's disease."

Professor Stortebecker has shown that the "brain accumulates about 10 times more mercury after exposure to mercury vapour, compared to equal amounts of mercuric ions being injected or ingested".

The ultimate in ridiculous treatments is performed regularly in dentistry - they implant amalgam fillings directly in to the bone. This treatment has the grand name of a Retrograde Root filling (a filling placed at the end of the root). In reality it is an implant of mercury directly into the brain. - would any other branch of medicine condone such an absurd practice? In Australia the dental authorities teach and condone this practice! There is even an item number that covers health fund rebates for this treatment. One wonders if the health funds are aware that they are paying for a treatment which may cost them far more from the secondary diseases created by it.

More recently, amalgam has not been the material of choice for retrograde root fillings.  Instead it is a product called Pro Root MTA (Mineral Trioxide Aggregate).  THe Material Safety Data Sheet for this product states; 

"Impurities may include Crystaline Silica (Carcinogen), calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, potassium and sodium sulphate compounds. ... This product contains chemicals (trace metals) known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

The major components of Pro Root (calcium silicate compounds, and calcium compounds containing aluminium oxide and gypsum) are considered Hazardous.

Exposure to wet substance may cause irreversible skin or eye destruction in the form of chemical third degree burns. May cause blindness.  Prolonged exposure can cause severe skin damage in the form of caustic chemical burns. Exposure to moisture will produce caustic calcium Hydroxide.

Pro Root MTA … chemically reacts with water, and some of the intermediate products of this reaction pose a far more severe hazard than does the material itself."

Mercury from amalgam may be found in all cells of the body and is stored principally in the kidney, liver and brain. The Australian Dental Association claim in many of their writings that the most accurate method of determining body burdens of mercury is to measure the mercury concentration in the urine or blood. They go on to claim that "the normal range of mercury in these fluids is well established."

Blood, urine and feces sampling are poor ways of estimating body burdens of mercury, as most of the mercury is locked onto the cells of the body (Retention Toxicity). There is very little circulating in the blood or being excreted in the urine which is part of the reason that it is a cumulative poison. Mercury binds to the sulphydril groups of proteins and is locked onto the cells. It is bound to body fats including the sheath that surrounds the nerve fibres. The only reliable test is a DMPS challenge test. , DMPS is a chelating agent which takes heavy metals of the cells and binds it in a way that can be excreted. This excretion is measurable.

Is mercury from amalgam harmful?

The Australian Dental Association say that mercury from amalgam does not cause a specific disease - This is the only point I agree with - mercury from amalgam causes long term, low-level mercury poisoning which, is characterised by a very wide range of symptoms - micromercurialism

Immune System

The Australian Dental Association claim that "that there is no scientific evidence that these tiny amounts of mercury released from dental fillings are a danger to health, apart from those rare cases where some individuals are unusually sensitive to this material."

The American Dental Association Journal claims that only 3% of the population show a true allergy to amalgam. If this is the case, than in Australia there could be 270,000 people who are sick from their amalgam fillings, assuming that only half of the population have amalgam in their mouths. Most of these people will possibly be mistreated for their allergic symptoms as most medical practitioners are unaware of the dangers of low level mercury poisoning.

In fact the latest research indicates that true allergy to mercury is really in the order of 13%. It is interesting to note the comments of Bio-Probe Newsletter to this research:

"The finding of 13.0% allergic to mercury is very important, especially combined with the finding that the subjects with amalgam fillings had significantly higher levels of mercury allergy. The authors even stated (page 205): "If the use of amalgams was to be limited, the prevalence of Hg sensitization would be expected to lessen."

This is yet another controlled study demonstrating a high incidence of allergy to mercury. In sixteen years of investigation, we have yet to find one single controlled study supporting the position of organized dentistry that allergy to mercury is "very rare", "one in a million", "less than 1%", or any other vague, unsupportable level! Continued public promotion of these unsupportable statements by health professionals could constitute negligent misrepresentation."

True allergy to amalgam is only one type of immune reaction. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers discussing the damaging effects mercury has on the immune system. Mercury from amalgam may result in an increase in allergies, skin rashes and itching. Mercury will always have a detrimental effect on the immune system. This creates an environment in the body for other diseases to develop. When mercury binds to proteins, these proteins will appear to the cells of the immune system as foreign substances. They will then be attacked by the immune system and may lead to a cascade of events ending in overt auto immune diseases.69,70,68   (See the MELISA website at www.melisa.org)

An example of a local immune reaction is the redness and inflammation that some people have to stainless steel ear rings. This is obviously not a major toxic reaction. It is a reaction to a few atoms of the metal (usually nickel). Any of the metals in amalgam or other dental reconstructive appliances can cause exactly the same reaction. This includes gold.69

Mercury will bind strongly to Selenium, a trace element needed for a wide variety of enzyme functions. Latest research indicates a direct relationship between reduced blood selenium levels and an increase in the rate of cancer. Although this has been published in the alternate medical journals for years it is only now becoming known in the traditional medical journals.  Selenium is critically important for normal heart function.

Mercury and Reproductive System

"Women chronically exposed to mercury vapour experienced increased frequencies of menstrual disturbances and spontaneous abortions….. A high mortality rate was observed among infants born to women who displayed symptoms of mercury poisoning." (This was written back in 1984! By the USEPA) 80

Mercury from amalgam fillings will cross the placenta and concentrate in the foetus.  Mercury from amalgam will also cross the breast milk and concentrate in the body of the feeding infant. Breast milk increases the bioavailability of mercury to the infant. Prenatal exposure to mercury may cause developmental defects and may effect neurological development.93,

Not only does the mercury enter the developing child's body but the level of Mercury in liver, kidney and brain tissue of the foetus, new-born and young child is directly Proportional to the Number of Amalgam Fillings in the Mother's Mouth! 94 In the conclusion of this study, Prof. Drasch of Munich University states

"Future discussion on the pros and cons of dental amalgam should not be limited to adults or children with their own amalgam fillings, but also include fetal exposure. The unrestricted application of amalgam for dental restorations in women before and during the child-bearing age should be reconsidered."

In another paper by the same author, the following conclusion is presented: "These results show that amalgam fillings release silver as well . Silver is a reliable marker for the fact that the elevated concentrations of inorganic mercury found in tissues of people with amalgam filings, derive mainly from these fillings and not from other theoretically possible sources."

Dr Aposhian has this to say about research that is now available:

"I'm worried that the amount of mercury coming from dental amalgams that we're putting in the mouths of young children today might be harmful to them as far as effecting their learning abilities, their performance abilities. I'd hate to think that 20 years from now we will have hurt some of these children when we could have prevented it by proper scientific research, and that is what we must do now."

There is a statistically significant relationship between mercury levels in the mother and infertility, miscarriage and still births.

If you are pregnant try not to have amalgam fillings removed. Never allow amalgam fillings to be placed in your mouth. Do not go into a dental surgery where amalgam is used as the mercury vapour levels in the air may be harmful to the foetus. This is not a melodramatic warning - it is a real possibility.

Blood

Mercury can cause a weakening in the wall of the small blood vessels - Micro-angiopathies - this results in a reduction of blood supply to the tissues resulting in reduced function and cell death.38 This may present as cold hands and feet or heart attacks.

Mercury is also known to bind to hemoglobin in red blood cells. It occupies one of the sites which would otherwise carry oxygen. If we don't get enough oxygen we become fatigued!

Kidney

Mercury from amalgam fillings has been shown to cause a 50% reduction in kidney filtration after just two months in the mouth (animal studies) . This does not mean that you will get immediate kidney failure but does indicate a great reduction in the ability of the kidneys to eliminate toxic waste from your body.

Antibiotic Resistance

Internationally there is great concern within the medical profession of the dramatic increase in antibiotic resistance of bacteria. We are seeing an increase in diseases such as TB and many other infectious diseases, which are resistant to antibiotic treatment. There are many reasons for the antibiotic resistance developing but little attention has been paid to the role of mercury.

Research from 1993 and later has shown that mercury from amalgam fillings will cause an increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the gut and mouth. , , The number of antibiotic resistant bacteria fall rapidly after the amalgams are removed.

This is a major public health issue! Various medical authorities internationally are beginning to look into the seriousness of this research.

Amalgam And Other Metals In The Mouth

Placing gold into a mouth with amalgam fillings will create an increase in electrical currents in the fillings which results in an increase in the release of mercury from all of the fillings.

Placing a gold crown over an amalgam filling may cause a four fold increase in the amount of mercury being driven through the tooth. , Amalgam is still the most commonly used material to build a core for a crown. Gold crowns on top of amalgam creates a permanent galvanic cell.

The text books warn against creating galvanic reactions in the mouth, yet this technique is taught as the best way of restoring a badly broken down tooth. Again there is an item number for the health funds to pay on!

In 1997 Caulk Co, one manufacturer of amalgam, in their MSDS warned against placing amalgam in a mouth with other metals and specifically warns against using amalgam as a core under cast metal crowns.

Effects On Dental Personnel

To justify their position the dental authorities claim that if dental amalgam is so dangerous for the public then why is it that dentists, who are exposed to far greater concentrations of mercury, are not sick.  Fair arguement if it were true.

The published research shows a strikingly different situation concerning the health of dentists and dental personnel.

· Twice the rate (as in the rest of the population) of miscarriage, infertility and still births have been noted in female dental personnel exposed to mercury.45,77,81,82 The probability of conception each menstrual cycle for women who prepared 30 or more amalgams per week, was only 63% of that for unexposed women.

Another study of 298 dentists showed that: "30% of the high mercury dentists had polyneuropathies. No polyneuropathies were detected in the control group. The high mercury group had mild visuographic dysfunction; they also had more symptom-distress than did the control group. These findings suggest that the use of mercury as a restorative material is a health risk for dentists."

In studies of dentists by Professors Echeverria and Apshian dentists were shown to be severely effected by mercury:

DR Diana Echeverria (University of Washington): "The kinds of things that we have found are: losses in function associated with the ability to move very small things with your hands - a manual dexterity problem; other kinds of really distinct functions concentration, the inability to concentrate. Actually those are skills that anybody needs."

PROFESSOR APOSHIAN: "The implications are that in the dental technicians the mercury has caused very definite central nervous system disorders."

Other research shows that dental personnel are severely effected by the mercury they are exposed to:

• twice the rate of glioblastomas than the rest of the population.
• Reduced IQ levels have been demonstrated , ,
• Psycho-motor and psycho-emotional studies of dentists demonstrate a severe drop in scores compared to the rest of the population.
• Twice the rate of suicide of any professional group.
• 20% of Canadian dentists are on permanent disability for psychological reasons

And for those totally cynical dentists who still believe that their health is not effected, the following excerpt from the Bio-Probe Newsletter is worth considering:

Mercury Exposure of the Population: IV - Mercury Exposure of Male Dentists, Female Dentists and Dental Aides. Zander, D; Ewers, U; Freier, I; Brockhaus, A.

Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 193(4):318-328, Dec 1992.

ABSTRACT [Article in German]: Urinary mercury levels were determined in 22 dentists and 46 dental nurses and assistants working in 15 private dental offices in West Germany. For comparison, urinary mercury levels of 29 subjects without occupational mercury exposure were studied.

On average, urinary mercury in dental personnel was higher than in the reference group. Individual mercury levels, however, were all significantly below present occupational exposure limits. Urinary mercury was significantly correlated with the number of amalgam fillings in dental personnel as well as in the reference group. Following administration of Dimaval a significant increase of mercury excretion was observed in both groups.

Regarding total exposure to mercury in dental personnel, the contribution of mercury exposure from the occupational environment is of the same order of magnitude as their exposure from their own amalgam fillings. Dental nurses were found to be more exposed than dentists. This finding seems to

be related predominantly to the larger number of amalgam fillings in dental nurses.

BIO-PROBE COMMENT: Data from the American Dental Association (ADA) comparing the health and mortality of dentists to the general population are frequently cited as proof that amalgam mercury is harmless, as the dentists are claimed to be as healthy as the general public. These ADA studies do not separate dentists who use mercury from those that do not use mercury, nor do they consider the presence of amalgam fillings in either the dentists or the general public. The ADA data therefore, is totally irrelevant to the question of exposure to amalgam mercury.

This study demonstrates that, even in dental personnel, body burden of mercury from amalgam fillings is at least equal to the occupational exposure. Even more foreboding, the dental assistants had larger exposures than did the dentists. Through the years, the ADA has focused on mercury exposure in dentists (via the invalid technique of non-challenge urine mercury measurements), while totally ignoring exposure in dental assistants and hygienists!

Go to top of page

What You Can Do

After reading this it is tempting for people to be concerned enough to rush to their dentist and demand that all of their amalgams be replaced.

DO NOT DO THIS.

Unless correct precautions are taken, you may be exposed to extremely high levels of mercury, and you may become seriously ill. Protocols do exist for the safer removal of amalgam - they have been designed to maximize the benefit of this type of treatment for the patient. Simply removing the amalgams is like turning of the bath taps. It will stop the greatest source of mercury into your body. You will still need to empty the bath tub - mercury is stored in the body and takes a long time to come out. In some cases it will be important to work with a medical doctor who is able to treat mercury poisoning. These people are trained in environmental medicine.

We are told often by the dental authorities that removing amalgam does nothing for a persons health. These same authorities have the audacity to use such an unjustified position to suggest that amalgam removal for the sake of health improvements is 'unethical'!

There is now ample research which demonstrates that not only is amalgam the greatest source of mercury to the general population but also the removal of amalgam produces an overall reduction in the body's burden of mercury. The Bio-Probe Newsletter comments on these studies are pertinent:

"The two preceding studies demonstrate, without doubt, that the removal of amalgam dental fillings results in decreased exposure to mercury. Toxicology reference books state that elimination of exposure is the key factor in addressing mercury intoxication. The new USEPA findings and recommendations define a risk from mercury exposure at much lower levels than previously thought."

Never allow amalgam to be placed in your mouth ever again. There are alternatives. If your dentist still believes that the alternatives are not as good as amalgam perhaps you could suggest he/she read the published literature demonstrating that amalgam is in fact one of the worst mechanical restorative materials. Alternately you can change dentists - you do have the right to choose.

Never go into a dental surgery where amalgam is used. The mercury vapour levels may be so high as to be immediately hazardous to your health. This warning is particularly relevant if you are pregnant, have impaired immune function or impaired kidney function. Mercury vapour levels in dental surgeries have been measured to be as high as 150mcg/m3 . Thus, to choose a dentist the first thing you should do is ring and ask the receptionist if amalgam is used in the practice! If a dentist is still using amalgam he/she is still unaware of the dangers of this material. Keep well away!

Ensure that the exhaust from the dental suction system is vented out of the building.   Many dental practices vent back into the premises.  You will in effect be sitting in a concentrated cloud of mercury vapour every time the dentist is drilling an amalgam implant.

When you do have your amalgams removed there are some dietary supplements which have been shown to be helpful to either remove mercury from the body or to start to repair some of the damage caused by mercury. Research released in 1996 shows that the only thing that is known to take mercury out of the brain and across the blood brain barrier is 'fresh coriander'. Chlorella is an algae which is also known to assist the removal of mercury from your body. Selenium is a basic supplement but in Australia you will need a prescription to get it.

If you are a dentist and are upset by what you have just read please look up the references and prove it to yourself.

Conclusion

The overwhelming quantity and quality of scientific research leaves no doubt
that dental amalgam is a serious health hazard
and that the only morally correct stand
that any government should take is to ban its use immediately.
There are plenty of good alternatives.

Go to top of page

References:

1. Babich et al ., The mediation of mutagenicity and clastogenicity of heavy metals by physio chemical factors. Environ Res., 1985:37;253-286

2. Hansen K et al A survey of metal induced mutagenicity in vitro and in vivo J Amer Coll Toxicol ., 1984:3;381-430

3. Hansen K et al A survey of metal induced mutagenicity in vitro and in vivo J Amer Coll Toxicol ., 1984:3;381-430

4. Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of mercury toxicity. The biochemistry of Mercury in the environment. Nriagu, J.O.Ed Amsterdam Elsevier, 503-18,1979

5. PelletierL et al., In - vivo self reactivity of mononuclear cells to T cells and macrophages exposed to HgCl2 Eur. J Immune., 1985: 460-465

6. Verchaeve L et al., Comparative in vitro cytogenetic studies in mercury exposed human lymphocytes Mutation Res., 1985:157;221-226.

7. Americsn Acaderny of Dental Science, 'A history of dental and oralscience in America', Philadelphia: Sarnuel White, 1876

8. Bremmer, D.K, 'The story of dentistry', Revised 3rd Edition, Broo/dyn:

9. Ring, M., 'Dcntistry, an illustrated history', New York: Harryu NAbrams,1985

10. Stock, A., Z Angew. Chemie, 1926, 39, 984-9

11. Stock, A., ibid, 1928, 41,663-72

12. Stock, A., Z ,lnorg. Jlllgem. Chemie, 1934, 217, 241-53

13. Stock, A., Naturwisch, 1935, 28, 453-6

14. Stoek,A.,Arch. GewerbepathGcwerbchygie, 1936,7,388-413

15. Stoek, A., Ber Dtsch Chem. Ges., 1939, 72, 1844 57

16. American Dental Association, 'Pnnciple of ethics and code of professional conduct', Section l-J: Representation of care and fees, 211 E Chicago Avenue, Chicago IL US,64611

17. Toxic Teeth: The Chronic Mercury Poisoning of Modern Man Murray J Vimy Chemistry & Industry 2 January 1995 17

18. Johansson BI Bergman B Corrosion of titanium and amalgam couples: effect of fluoride, area size, surface preparation and fabrication procedures. Dent Mater (1995 Jan) 11(1):41-6

19. Replacement of missing cusps: an in vitro study. LC; Smith-BG J-Dent. 1994 Apr; 22(2): 118-20

20. Clinical evaluation of a highly wear resistant composite. Dickinson-GL; Gerbo-LR; Leinfelder-KF Am-J-Dent. 1993 Apr; 6(2): 85-7

21. Evaluation of occlusal marginal adaptation of Class II resin-composite restorations ASDC-J-Dent-Child. Jul-Oct. 1993

22. Three-year follow-up of five posterior composites: in vivo wear. Willems-G; Lambrechts-P; Braem-M; Vanherle-G J-Dent. 1993 Apr; 21(2): 74-8

23. Directed Shrinkage Technique in Class V Composite Restorations: in Vivo Microscopic Evaluation and Clinical Procedure, Ferrari, M., Practical Periodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry, Vol. 5, No. 7, September 1993, pp. 29-36.

24. Longevity of dental restorations in selected patients from different practice environments. Mahmood-S; Smales-RJ Aust-Dent-J. 1994 Feb; 39(1): 15-7

25. Evaluation of occlusal marginal adaptation of Class II resin composite inlays

26. Kreulen-CM; van-Amerongen-WE; Borgmeijer-PJ; Gruythuysen-RJ ASDC-J-Dent-Child. 1994 Jan-Feb; 61(1): 29-34

27. Three-year follow-up of five posterior composites: in vivo wear. Willems-G; Lambrechts-P; Braem-M; Vanherle-G J-Dent. 1993 Apr; 21(2): 74-8

28. Posterior adhesive composite resin: a historic review. Fusayama-T J-Prosthet-Dent. 1990 Nov; 64(5): 534-8

29. Health risks from exposure to mercury from crematoria. The Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute Report, 51M 1/92.

30. More mercury from crematoria : Nature 1990 Aug 16;346(6285):615.

31. Comment on: Nature 1990 Oct 18;347(6294):623 Nature. 1991 Feb 28; 349(6312): 746-

32. Vimy, M.J., & Lorscheider, F.L., J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990, 3, 111-23

33. Vlmy, M.J., & Lorscheider, F.L., ibid, 1985, 64, 1072-5

34. aussrgen von medizin und zahnmedizin', Syrnposium, Koln, West Germany, Mar.;h 1984, Abst. D29

35. Nylander, M., Friberg, L., & Lind, B., Swed. Dent. J., 1987, 11, 179-87

36. Eggelston, D.W., & Nylander, M., J. Prosth. Dent., 1987, 58, 704-7

37. G. Mark Richardson PhD.,Medical Devices Bureau, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Canada December 1995 this paper was later published in Human and Ecological Risk Assesment Vol2 No4: 709-61, 1996

38. Stortebecker. Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam 1985

39. Stortebecker, P.. The Lancet, May 27, 1989.

40. Mercury Contamination In the Dental Office. . NYS Dental Journal November 1979 pp 457-458

41. Magnus Nylander,. ICBM 1988

42. Svare CW et.al. J. Dent. Res.60(9):1668-1671,1981

43. Ott K et. al. Dtsch. Zahnarztl Z 39(9):199-205, 1984

44. VimyMJ. LorscheiderFL J. Dent Res. 64(8):1069- 1071.,1985

45. Matts Hanson.J. Orthomolecular Psychiatry Vo12 No 3 Sept 1983

46. Langan,Fan,Hoos. JADA Vol 115 December 1987., 867 Donated by The ADA

47. Sam Queen; Chronic Mercury Toxicity; New Hope Against an Endemic Disease.

48. The US EPA maximum safe level is only 0.3 mcg /m3

49. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service recently published its Toxicological Profile for Mercury (Update) [ATSDR. TP-93/10]. Nov. 1994.

50. Patrick Störtebecker, Stockholm.. Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam- a hazard to the human brain.

51. ATSDR/EPA Priority List 1995

52. Koos et al.,. Am J Obstet And Gynecol., 1976:126;390-409

53. Stortebecker, P. Mercury poisoning from dental amalgam through a direct nose-brain transport. The Lancet, May 27, 1989.

54. Arvidson, B Acta Neurol Scand. 82(4):234-7. Oct 1990.

55. Arvidson B. Muscle Nerve. 15(10):1089-1094, Oct 1992.

56. Aschner: Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) (1986 Nov) 59(5):349-55

57. Retrograde Axonal Transport of Mercury in Primary Sensory Neurons Innervating the Tooth Pulp in the Rat. Neurosci Lett. 115(1):29-32. Jul 17, 1990

58. Neurosci Lett. 115(1):29-32. Jul 17, 1990

59. WD; Markesbery, Wenstrup, D; Ehmann, WR. Trace Element Imbalances in Isolated Subcellular Fractions of Alzheimer's Disease Brains. Brain Research. 553: 125-31. 1990

60. Duhr, E; Pendergrass, C; Kasarskis, E; Slevin, J; Haley, B. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). 75th Annual Meeting. Atlanta, Georgia. 21-25 April 1991. Abstract 493.

61. Stortebecker. P: Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam

62. Australian Dental Association, Sydney, NSW, 1989

63. Aposhian-HV; Maiorino-RM; Rivera-M; Bruce-DC; Dart-RC; Hurlbut-KM; Levine- Zheng-W; Fernando-Q; Carter-D; et-al J-Toxicol-Clin-Toxicol. 1992; 30(4): 505-28

64. Godfrey Campbell J. Advanced Medicine 7(1) 1994

65. Australian Dental Association internet homepage November 1997

66. JADA, Vol. 122, Aug. 1991, p. 54

67. An Epidemiological Study of Mercury Sensitization. Sato, K; Kusada, Y; Zhang, Q; Yanagihara, M; Ueda, K; Morihiro, H; Ishii, Y; Mori, T; Hirai, T; Yomiyama, T; Iida, K. Allergology International, 46:201-6, 1997.

68. Hultman P Johansson U Turley SJ Lindh U Enestrom S Pollard KM FASEB J (1994 Nov) 8(14):1183-90

69. Stejskal VDM, Cederbrant K, Lindvall A & Forsbeck M Melisa - an in vitro tool for the study of metal allergy. Toxic in Vitro 8(5):991-1000 (1994)

70. Veron et al Amalgam Dentaires et allergies J Biol Buccale., 1986 : 14; 83-100

71. Abraham J, Svare C , Frank C,. J. Dent. Res. 63(1):71-73,1984

72. Malmström C., Hansson M., Nylander M., Conference on Trace Elements in Health and DIsease. Stockholm May 25-1992

73. Matts Hanson. ICBM conference Colorado 1988

74. Hal Huggins. Observations From The Metabolic Fringe. ICBM conf. Collarado 1988

75. Verchaeve L et al., Mutation Res., 1985:157; 221-226.

76. PelletierL et al., Eur. J Immun., 1985: 460-465

77. Amalgam Hazards - an assesment of research By Irwin Mandel DDS Assoc. Dean for Research School of dental and Oral Surgery Columbia University New York Published JADA Vol. 122 August 1991

78. Hultman P Johansson U Turley SJ Lindh U Enestrom S Pollard KM FASEB J (1994 Nov) 8(14):1183-90

79. Dr W. Kostler., President of the Austrian Oncology Society. Paper presented at the World Congress on Cancer. April 1994 Sydney Australia

80. EPA Mercury Health Effects Update Health Issue Assessment. Final report 1984 EOA-600/8- 84f. USEPA, Office of Health and Environmental Assesment Wsahington DC 20460

81. Gordon - Proceedings of Intl conference on Mercury Hazards in Dental Practice Sept. 2-4 Glasgow 1981

82. Lee, L.P. and Dixon Effects of Mercury on Spermatogenisis J Pharmacol Exp Thera 1975: 194(1); 171-181.

83. - VimyMJ, TakahashiY, LorscheiderFL Maternal -Fetal Distribution of Mercury Released From Dental Amalgam Fillings. 1990 published in FASEB faculty of Medicine, Univ of Calgary, Calgary Alberta Cannada 1990 published in FASEB

84. BrodskyJB. Occupational exposure to Mercury in dentistry and pregnancy outcome. JADA111(11):779- 780., 1985

85. Till et al. Zahnarztl. Welt/reform 1978:87;1130-1134.

86. Mohamed et al. J. Androl.,7(1):11-15.,1986.

87. Inouye M., Murao K., Kajiwara Y., Neurobeahv.Toxicol Teratol. ,1985:7;227-232

88. Koos et al., Mercury toxicity in pregnant women, fetus and newborn infant. Am J Obstet And Gynecol., 1976:126;390-409

89. Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of Mercury toxicity. The biochemistry of Mercury in the environment. Nriagu, J.O.Ed Amsterdam Elsevier, 503-18,1979

90. Babich et al ., Environ Res., 1985:37;253-286

91. Vimy, MJ; Hooper, DE; King, WW; Lorscheider, FL. Biological Trace Element Res., 56:143-52, 1997

92. Oskarsson, A; Schultz, A; Skerfving, S; Hallen, IP; Ohlin, B; Lagerkvist, BJ. Arch Environ Health, 51(3):234-51, 1996.

93. Drasch et. al. J Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology; 9(2):82-7, 1995

94. Boyd, N. D., H. Benediktsson, M. J. Vimy, D. E. Hooper, And F. L. Lorscheider. Am. J. Physiol. 261 (Regulatory Integrative Comp. Physiol. 30): R1010-R1014, 1991

95. Summers AO, Wireman J., Vimy MJ., Lorscheider Fl., Marshal B., Levy Sb., Bennet S., Billard L. J. Of Anti-Microbial Agents And Chemotherapy 37[4]:825-34 April 1993

96. Brunker P Rother D Sedlmeier R Klein J Mattes R Altenbuchner J Mol Gen Genet (1996 Jun 12) 251(3):307-15

97. Williams MV Environ Mol Mutagen (1996) 27(1):30-3

98. Malmström C., Hansson M., Nylander M., Conference on Trace Elements in Health and DIsease. Stockholm May 25-1992

99. Till et al. Zahnarztl. Welt/reform 1978:87;1130-1134.

100. Sikorski R et al .Women in dental surgeries: reproductive hazards in occupational exposure to metallic mercury. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (1987) 59(6):551-7

101. Rowland AS et al The effect of occupational exposure to mercury vapour on the fertility of female dental assistants Occup Environ Med (1994 Jan) 51(1):28-34

102. Shapiro et al Lancet 8282:1147-50. 1982

103. BBC Panorama 1994

104. Nylander et al.Fourth international symposium Epidemiology in Occupational Health.,Como Italy Sept 1985

105. Joel Butler " Neuropsychological Dysfunctioning Associated with the Dental Office Environment". Professor of Psychology at the University of North Texas.

106. Echeverria, D; et al Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17(2):161-168, 1995.

107. Gonzalez-Ramirez, D. Et al.. J Pharmacol Exp Therap. 272:264-274,1995

108. Skare: Scand J Work Environ Health (1990 Oct) 16(5):340-7

109. J. Can.. Dent 1994 Special Report

110. Long-Term Mercury Excretion in Urine After Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Bergerow, J; Zander, D; Freier, I; Dunemann, L Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 66(3):209-212, 1994.

111. Mercury in Saliva and Feces After Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Bjorkman, L; Sandborgh-Englund, G; Ekstrand, J. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 144(1):156-162,May 1997.

112. Nilsson B, Nilsson B. Mercury in dental practice. I. The working environment of dental personnel and thier exposure to mercury vapor. Swed Dent J 1986a;10:1-14.

Go to top of page