[quote]biglifter wrote:
It’s debatable as to whether it’s of value…but that avatar of yours is adding something.
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
But there IS something wrong with ignoring evidence, facts, and rational thought.[/quote]
In my opinion, it is a worse crime to refute evidence (your eyes and the patients symptoms), disregard facts (e.g. the patients values may be ‘in range’ but they are still suffering) and be imprisoned by rationality (I can’t explain it rationally, therfore it cannot be happening).
BBB[/quote]
How many patients of yours have had their fillings removed? What is your first hand knowledge?
I always ask this question because I always hear these stories but the closest I have ever found was someone hearing it from someone at a seminar.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
Your saying the white filling material cost 5 to 800 more than silver? That can’t be true. If it is, its pure robbery on the part of whoever manufactures that stuff. The amount of material required for a single filling is less than 500 dollars worth of platinum. Probably.[/quote]
I said INLAY/ONLAY. That is not a type of composite filling. It is a cast restoration much like a crown but fits inside a tooth.
Question, why is it some of you seem to think I am the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about?[/quote]
Don’t get all defensive, I don’t know what an inlay/onlay is and I think it’s reasonable for a layman in this discussion to assume it’s similar to a composite and be dismayed by the apparent cost. I’m still wondering how my composite filling is 30 years old when they are only supposed to last 5 to 10.
Has anyone on here had a white filling last less than 10 years? I ask because it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around a tooth being doomed by the time you’re 45 if you got a filling in it when you were 15. I can’t see how a tooth could take getting drilled out more than three times.
[quote]RBlue wrote:
As far as vaporization, has it ever been shown that dental amalgam will vaporize and release mercury gas at temperatures reached from hot liquids or chewing in the mouth? I think not. In fact, that is pretty laughable. Mercury itself wouldn’t exist in a gaseous form at temperatures in the mouth, it’s boiling point is 356 degrees celsius.
[/quote]
This is why wet clothes don’t dry at temperatures below 100 degrees Celcius.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
Your saying the white filling material cost 5 to 800 more than silver? That can’t be true. If it is, its pure robbery on the part of whoever manufactures that stuff. The amount of material required for a single filling is less than 500 dollars worth of platinum. Probably.[/quote]
I said INLAY/ONLAY. That is not a type of composite filling. It is a cast restoration much like a crown but fits inside a tooth.
Question, why is it some of you seem to think I am the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about?[/quote]
Don’t get all defensive, I don’t know what an inlay/onlay is and I think it’s reasonable for a layman in this discussion to assume it’s similar to a composite and be dismayed by the apparent cost. I’m still wondering how my composite filling is 30 years old when they are only supposed to last 5 to 10.
Has anyone on here had a white filling last less than 10 years? I ask because it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around a tooth being doomed by the time you’re 45 if you got a filling in it when you were 15. I can’t see how a tooth could take getting drilled out more than three times.[/quote]
?
There are people in this thread throwing insults at people who have been doing this for years as if my education needs to be called into question…yet you don’t understand why someone would get defensive? That is why other docs won’t even get into this online. I am not here to argue with you or anyone else about things people PAY me for the answer to. This about respect and if you don’t give any, don’t expect any in return.
You are asking for FREE advice and complaining about it as if I OWE you an answer. It doesn’t work like that.
You were given AVERAGES and ESTIMATES for about how long those fillings last. There are too many variables involved from your own oral hygiene to your own metabolism and genetics for anyone to give you some specific “due date” for when your fillings can fail.
Any other questions you have, well, you can ask all you want but I won’t be continuing this one.
Well okay then, since the resident Dentist has stepped aside in this discussion i will step up and tell you all what you should do.
There is probably no risk from silver amalgams, but, who knows, maybe the naturalpathic whackos are onto something, so, if your faced with getting a filling get a white one. They look better anyway. If you are worried they won’t last as long, take good care of your teeth by brushing twice a day and flossing at least once. Don’t eat Corn Nuts and if you really want to be sure, don’t eat corn chips. If your dentist goes for the silver without giving you a choice, get up and leave. Go see someone else and if they both say the same thing your circumstance probably does require silver.
If you already have silver, don’t get them replaced due to fear or with the hope of alleviate a chronic ailment. There’s no hard proof there’s anything to fear from silver and its just wishful thinking to think it will cure some chronic ailment. There is some risk in any procedure. Don’t replace a known risk, however small, over a completely unknown risk that people have hyped up. Also, every time they drill a tooth they take more tooth material so you are reducing the life of that tooth. Leave the silver in until it needs to come out due to degradation. Simple.
I don’t expect any payment for these words of wisdom but I do accept donations if you are so inclined. Just PM for my address.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Amalgam spelled backward is: maglama.
Say it.— Mag-la-ma.
Mag… la… ma
Maglama.
Used in a sentence: “Ima put maglama in yo’ mama”
[/quote]
It better be good. Or else…
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
Often, general malaise is psychosomatic.
.[/quote]
LOL, of course it is!
Well, that’s what the medical profession wants you to think, at least because it doesn’t fit with their business model. General malaise is too time-intensive a thing for the time-constrained medic to deal with in any way other than to possibly refer to a counsellor or, ususally, to prescribe antidepressants which often cause more harm than good.
So lets imagine a scenario where someone comes to you complaining of general malaise. Would you tell them its all in their head and maybe refer them to their GP, who will tell them its all in their head, or worse give them a blanket prescription for antidepressants, therby breaking the first hippocratic oath to ‘do not harm’?
BBB
[/quote]
Why are healthcare providers trained to treat the body and mind as if they do not work together? Hasn’t anyone heard of integrative medicine?
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
Often, general malaise is psychosomatic.
.[/quote]
LOL, of course it is!
Well, that’s what the medical profession wants you to think, at least because it doesn’t fit with their business model. General malaise is too time-intensive a thing for the time-constrained medic to deal with in any way other than to possibly refer to a counsellor or, ususally, to prescribe antidepressants which often cause more harm than good.
So lets imagine a scenario where someone comes to you complaining of general malaise. Would you tell them its all in their head and maybe refer them to their GP, who will tell them its all in their head, or worse give them a blanket prescription for antidepressants, therby breaking the first hippocratic oath to ‘do not harm’?
BBB
[/quote]
How’d I miss this gem before?
I love that you ignored the list of other possible conditions I gave that include general malaise as a symptom. If someone’s complaining of general malaise, and if I were their physician, I would do lab tests & other investigations to try to get at the root of the problem. All the while recognizing that often psychological issues can have physical manifestations because we are taught that the mind and the body are NOT SEPARATE.
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
As far as vaporization, has it ever been shown that dental amalgam will vaporize and release mercury gas at temperatures reached from hot liquids or chewing in the mouth? I think not. In fact, that is pretty laughable. Mercury itself wouldn’t exist in a gaseous form at temperatures in the mouth, it’s boiling point is 356 degrees celsius.
[/quote]
This is why wet clothes don’t dry at temperatures below 100 degrees Celcius.[/quote]
LOL! With WET clothes, the water is able to evaporate because it’s already in a LIQUID form. So the molecules are more freely able to move and even at temperatures below the boiling point there will be some molecules with enough energy to evaporate.
That requires it to be liquid. Molecules in a solid are not free to move like that. Dental amalgam is a solid at temperatures in the mouth.
Related in its connection to placedbo and medical practice:
“Numerous studies concluding that popular antidepressants work by altering brain chemistry have now been contradicted (the drugs help with mild and moderate depression, when they work at all, through a placebo effect)”
[quote]RBlue wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
As far as vaporization, has it ever been shown that dental amalgam will vaporize and release mercury gas at temperatures reached from hot liquids or chewing in the mouth? I think not. In fact, that is pretty laughable. Mercury itself wouldn’t exist in a gaseous form at temperatures in the mouth, it’s boiling point is 356 degrees celsius.
[/quote]
This is why wet clothes don’t dry at temperatures below 100 degrees Celcius.[/quote]
LOL! With WET clothes, the water is able to evaporate because it’s already in a LIQUID form. So the molecules are more freely able to move and even at temperatures below the boiling point there will be some molecules with enough energy to evaporate.
That requires it to be liquid. Molecules in a solid are not free to move like that. Dental amalgam is a solid at temperatures in the mouth.[/quote]
I don’t know if mercury vaporizes in the mouth and don’t have an opinion on it, but I don’t like this analogy. Ice evaporates below 32f after all.
[quote]RBlue wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
As far as vaporization, has it ever been shown that dental amalgam will vaporize and release mercury gas at temperatures reached from hot liquids or chewing in the mouth? I think not. In fact, that is pretty laughable. Mercury itself wouldn’t exist in a gaseous form at temperatures in the mouth, it’s boiling point is 356 degrees celsius.
[/quote]
This is why wet clothes don’t dry at temperatures below 100 degrees Celcius.[/quote]
LOL! With WET clothes, the water is able to evaporate because it’s already in a LIQUID form. So the molecules are more freely able to move and even at temperatures below the boiling point there will be some molecules with enough energy to evaporate.
That requires it to be liquid. Molecules in a solid are not free to move like that. Dental amalgam is a solid at temperatures in the mouth.[/quote]
http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/tx900309c
???
lmao at where this has gone. I believe very strongly in the scientific method. I did not come in here with pseudoscience. All the info I quoted was from actual peer reviewed papers. The debate is clearly not over IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
Look at the study “Mercury in dental amalgam: a risk analysis”
Quotes -
Mercury from amalgam fillings primarily contributes to the daily absorption of mercury in two ways. Mercury is released in vapour form, inhaled, and up to 80% is reabsorbed in the airways. Abraded amalgam particles are swallowed and to a smaller extent oxidised in the intestinal tract.
BarregaÌ?rd et al (7) described three patients experiencing symptoms of mercury toxicity who all had the common feature that they eliminated large quantities of mercury in their urine (54, 53 and 25 μg/g creatinine1 respectively) and had no source of exposure other than their amalgam fillings which they worked on with nicotine chewing gum. When the amalgam fillings were removed in the first two cases with the highest elimination, the mercury elimination fell to expected values and the symptoms disappeared. In the third case the patient refused to have the amalgam removed, but the elimination seemed to decrease with reduced chewing gum consumption.
Mercury content in the brains (occipital cortex) of non-amalgam bearers was found in a study of autopsies to be around 7 ng/g (6.7, range 1.9â??22.1). The brains of amalgam bearers contained around 15 ng/g (15.2, range 3.8 â?? 121.4)
If you look at the graph you see that they determined that the exposure to amalgam bearers was greater than the lowest adverse effect exposure level.
p.s - Chiropractic is very very far from scientific…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]RBlue wrote:
As far as vaporization, has it ever been shown that dental amalgam will vaporize and release mercury gas at temperatures reached from hot liquids or chewing in the mouth? I think not. In fact, that is pretty laughable. Mercury itself wouldn’t exist in a gaseous form at temperatures in the mouth, it’s boiling point is 356 degrees celsius.
[/quote]
This is why wet clothes don’t dry at temperatures below 100 degrees Celcius.[/quote]
LOL! With WET clothes, the water is able to evaporate because it’s already in a LIQUID form. So the molecules are more freely able to move and even at temperatures below the boiling point there will be some molecules with enough energy to evaporate.
That requires it to be liquid. Molecules in a solid are not free to move like that. Dental amalgam is a solid at temperatures in the mouth.[/quote]
http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/tx900309c
???[/quote]
From the results and discussion of that paper:
[quote]In summary, the use of electron yield Hg LIII XAS reveals the formation of β-HgS on the surface of an aged dental amalgam restorative, a chemical form that is biounavailable and unlikely to pose a toxic hazard.[/quote](emphasis mine)
They got the aged dental amalgam teeth from some storage, had no idea how long they’d been out of the mouth. This study didn’t demonstrate any mechanism for the loss of mercury from the surface of the amalgam other than the production of the biounavailable and likely non-toxic beta-HgS compound. The authors did enjoy speculating, but that’s all it was.
Hope these links work, I had to log onto my school’s site to access them:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca:2048/content/33/4/894.long
Tmay11, have you decided what you are going to do?
[quote]on edge wrote:
Tmay11, have you decided what you are going to do?[/quote]
I bet he’s afraid to get involved in this any more, lol.