I need to thank my dad for alerting me about this...
While I was on vacation, my local news ran a story about the possibility that small amounts of bisphenol A (BPA) could be present in some types of dental filling material. If you are not familiar with the health concerns surrounding BPA, I suggest you read this overview about BPA written by our Guide to Environmental Issues, Larry West.
Before you cast a gigantic stone at amalgam fillings as the culprit for the potential BPA exposure; hold your horses. According to the report, BPA is found in white dental fillings and dental sealants, but in the eye's of the American Dental Association (ADA), the levels of BPA in dental material is insignificant. The ADA's Council for Scientific Affairs released a statement in July of this year that, long story short, declares that BPA is "rarely used as a formula ingredient in dental products," and according to research, the exposure to BPA via six dental sealants for a male child aged 7 to 14 is "two to five times lower than the estimated daily exposure from food and environmental sources."
As with any issue regarding the safety surrounding the materials used in dental fillings, it is in your best interest to discuss any concerns you may have, with your dentist. However, this topic does pose a valid question, not only to dentists, but to the powerful regulatory agencies that provide citizens with a trusted voice on what is and isn't harmful for us and our children:
Does BPA, regardless of the amount, really belong in dental material?
There are numerous “white” composite fillings available that do not contain BPA (just ask your dentist or read the manufacturers’ product labels). Meanwhile, there are no safe “silver” fillings (amalgams) — all amalgams contain between 43% and 58% mercury, a known neurotoxin, reproductive toxin, and pollutant.
Get real, Guest. How can you use this article that calls into question the safety of plastic fillings to promote fantasy about the danger of amalgam fillings?
Amalgams have been used for 150 years without any evidence of causing harm to more than a handful of people. Composites have been around for 40.
Dear Dr. Pruitt,
So what if dentists have used mercury for 150 years? This is not scientific evidence; this is mere antecdote.
In fact, not a single scientific study has indicated that dental mercury is safe for young children and unborn babies (even the FDA says that these vulnerable populations are at risk for neurological damage). And absolutely no studies have determined whether amalgam is safe when used in combination with all the other mercury we are being exposed to from other sources (that is, we don’t know whether it is safe when used in a real-life situation as opposed to a laboratory).
However, there are scientific studies demonstrating that dental mercury is a major source of mercury pollution in our air (cremation, office emissions, etc), our water (office releases, human waste, etc.), and soil (burial, fertilizer, etc.). Once in the environment, studies show that dental mercury methylates, making it even more toxic (this is how dental mercury ends up in fish).
What’s more, we know that most dentists who implant mercury into patients’ bodies actually don’t have the patients’ consent to do so. The vast majority do not even know that their “silver” fillings contain mercury. Once informed, polls have shown that over 4/5ths of patients would choose non-mercury fillings even if they cost more.
Dr. Pruitt, I know that this is a liability issue for you (after all, if amalgam is not safe, how much neurological damage have you inflicted over the course of your career?). But I would encourage you to educate yourself about dental mercury and to respect your patients enough not to implant a neurotoxin in their bodies. At the very least, show some concern for your community by doing your part to end dental mercury pollution.
Don’t worry! Just belief the ADA statement this time. But remember, the daily exposure from food and other sources is a DAILY exposure, whilst the exposure to fillings is only once.
Hey second guest, first of all, mercury is bioaccumulative — that means all of the sources add up, including mercury fillings. Second, exposure to fillings is daily. Scientists have proven that mercury is released not only when mercury is implanted in your tooth, but also when you chew and brush your teeth.
o I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone.
——–
Health Insurance Plan
Careless statements about a medical device that has been safe and effective for over 150 years cause parents with autistic children and other severe handicaps to endure invasive dental treatments to remove what you causually call toxic fillings.
The process is traumatic for parents that are already racked with guilt, and is cruel for the child who doesn’t understand. Yet it never helps.
Do you anonymous people whom cannot be held accountable really want to be responsible for such cruelty? Well keep talking.
D. Kellus Pruitt DDS
I appreciate the passionate debate on this topic. Getting people to care about anything that’s dentally related can be difficult.
Choice of restorative material is important. Porcelain and gold are superior materials, but cost prohibitive. Resin and amalgam are compromises.
Joe
Sorry,
my first comment regards to bpa!
I know that this is a liability issue for you (after all, if amalgam is not safe, how much neurological damage have you inflicted over the course of your career?). But I would encourage you to educate yourself about dental mercury and to respect your patients enough not to implant a neurotoxin in their bodies. At the very least, show some concern for your community by doing your part to end dental mercury pollution.
Wow, “D. Kellus Pruitt DDS ” sounds very narrow-minded in his comments. If I am correct, “D. Kellus Pruitt DDS ” must be a old person near retiring because he believes in what he has learned but is not willing to accept any new discoveries and findings.
On the other hand, “Toronto Dentist in Etobicoke” does not only sound much more personable, but also better educated to accept findings from a new perspective. I would say “Toronto Dentist in Etobicoke” definitely has greater potential than “D. Kellus Pruitt DDS “…(and is most likely younger than the latter
“D. Kellus Pruitt DDS ” -> we are having a “discussion” here..if you are this persistent in your views, then you have already closed your doors to our discussion. Please leave, as your comments are not of benefit to the modern community we have today. Thank you