23 replies to this topic

[stephen_b]

There have been several threads on these forums about the extent of the danger of mercury fillings, getting them removed, and what might be the best way to go about heavy metal removal afterward.

I looked at the evidence and choose to have my fillings removed. I had over a dozen of them, and most were fairly extensive molar fillings.

If a person chooses to have them removed, there are good protocols and bad protocols. My dentist followed the one here, which among other things calls for using a rubber dam and a high volume evacuator. During the drilling, care is taken to drill around the filling and not across it to avoid releasing mercury vapor.

My dental work was done in four separate sessions, each for a quadrant. The sessions lasted over an hour, except for the last which had only small fillings to remove.

The replacement material was composite (porcelain). It is applied as a liquid, given a rough shape, and cures instantly when hit with a UV light tool. After curing it is drilled and polished to its final shape, and is an area where a good dentist gets to demonstrate their skill.

My dentist has the philosophy of trying to keep as much of the tooth structure as possible. In fact, that was the main reason I chose to go with him (my original dentist said that he would have to put crowns on all of my teeth and would drill across the center of the fillings). Throughout, the dentist I worked with took the time to make sure the procedure was painless (dabbing some numbing gel on the spot where the shot would go, waiting for the first shot to take effect so that the second shot would be painless). He had a couple of large screens on which to display the progress, on which he would use a 300x camera to take snapshots at high resolution. On the other screen I would watch Grateful Dead and U2 concerts. The recovery was steady, some tooth sensitivity that faded over a few weeks' time.

All things considered, I'm very pleased with the results. Cosmetically, my teeth look great; one would never know that I'd had fillings. At a current age of 44, I hope that I will have a long time to benefit from being mercury free.

Stephen

Attached Files

•  molars_before.png   63.76KB   6 downloads
•  molars_during.png   71.94KB   6 downloads
•  molars_after.png   59.49KB   7 downloads

[Snapple]

It is beyond mind-blowing that dentists are STILL putting mercury in peoples' mouths. A known, potent neurotoxin, right where it can off-gas 24/7/365.

Congrats on the procedure and the protocol; I had a similar procedure a few years ago and feel very happy about having mercury out of my mouth.

Edited by Snapple, 24 August 2008 - 08:09 PM.

[abelard lindsay]

I got all my mercury fillings removed too.. Had to tell the dentist I was doing it for cosmetic purposes though as he told me he couldn't ethically do it if I merely thought they were poisoning me.

[luv2increase]

I had around 6 removed 7 years ago when I was 18. It was probably the best thing I could have done for my health.


If you are going to have yours removed, make sure the doctor is well known for doing it and takes all precautions such as using a rubber dam etc....



If you get a doctor who doesn't do it correctly, all the mercury vapor and particles will redistribute themselves right back into your system causing a serious chance of mercury toxicity!



EDIT: I really don't understand what this has to do with 'supplements' though. It should probably be moved to somewhere more fitting.

Edited by luv2increase, 24 August 2008 - 10:04 PM.

[stephen_b]

Yeah, I couldn't figure out where else to put it. My tenuous reasoning is that it prevents undesired mercury "supplementation".

The follow-up though is how to get rid of accumulated mercury. There are many methods out there. One is the Andy Cutler protocol, which a lot of people swear by. One of the hallmarks of his program is to dose chelating products in such a way that they are always present in your body. The thinking goes that different supplements (like ALA) have different half-lives. While the chelator is present, mercury is being dislodged, but as it goes out of the body, it resettles. If a low dose of chelator is present over a longer, continuous period of time, then this settling effect is lessened. I am not aware of any studies directly testing the protocol, but it seems to have a lot of believers. Even according to the protocol, if one's metal removal system isn't compromised, one option is to do nothing and over the course of a year or two your body will take care of it. Many people who start it in the first place are having chronic fatigue-like symptoms.

The Pfeiffer protocol involves in part building up zinc levels in advance of dosing with a metallothionein promoter. This promoter (MTP-II, available by prescription) is composed of the amino acid precursors in the ratio that they are present in metallothionein (minus the zinc, and since each molecule of metallothionein uses so much zinc, it's important to monitor and supplement zinc levels). I'll probably choose this one.

Stephen

[abelard lindsay]

For removing mercury and lead from the system, probably the most safe method is NAC/ALA or via 2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) works. Vitamin Research Products sells DMSA and it has a good safety record, much better than DMPS, another chelator, which has reportedly can have some nasty side effects. You should see your doctor and actually get tested to make sure you really have mercury poisoning first before taking something like DMSA as it does remove zinc and other essential minerals from the body along with the heavy metals.

Effect of chelate treatments on kidney, bone and brain lead levels of lead-intoxicated mice.
Jones MM, Basinger MA, Gale GR, Atkins LM, Smith AB, Stone A.

Department of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235.

The effects of chelating agent treatment with meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), Na2CaEDTA, Na2ZnEDTA, and Na3ZnDTPA on the organ lead levels of lead-loaded mice have been determined. At 1 mmol/kg/day i.p., all caused reductions in the lead levels of the kidney after four injections, but only Na2CaEDTA produced a significant reduction in brain lead. All chelating agents caused significant reductions in kidney and brain lead levels when administered at a daily dose of 1 mmol/kg/day for eight days, but only DMSA reduced the bone lead level. In animals given 50 mg Pb/kg or 100 mg Pb/kg, the administration of Na2CaEDTA or DMSA at 1 mmol/kg/day x 8 produced significant reductions in kidney, bone and brain lead levels, but DMSA produced greater reductions of bone lead in both groups and of kidney lead in the group given 100 mg Pb/kg. An examination of published data describing the effect of chelating agent treatment on brain lead levels indicates that DMSA produces a reduction in brain lead levels under all conditions examined to date.

PMID: 8197593 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

Urinary excretion of mercury after occupational exposure to mercury vapour and influence of the chelating agent meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA).
Roels HA, Boeckx M, Ceulemans E, Lauwerys RR.

Industrial Toxicology and Occupational Medicine Unit, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

The spontaneous and chelator mediated excretion of mercury in urine was investigated in male subjects occupationally exposed to mercury vapour (alkaline battery and chloralkali plants) who did not exhibit any sign of kidney damage. The time course of the spontaneous elimination of mercury in urine was examined in seven workers (age 22-40) who had been removed from exposure to mercury vapour (average duration of exposure 4.4 years) because their urinary mercury concentrations repeatedly exceeded 100 micrograms/g creatinine. The post exposure observation period started 10 to 29 days after the date of removal and lasted about 300 days (slow HgU elimination phase). For each worker, the kinetics of the spontaneous HgU decline followed a first order process; the biological half life ranged from 69 to 109 days (mean 90 days). The increased urinary excretion of mercury after a single oral administration of 2 g meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) was investigated in 16 control workers (group A; age 23 to 49), in 11 workers removed from exposure for at least two years (group B; age 27 to 41), and in 16 workers currently exposed to mercury vapour (group C; age 21 to 58). In group C, the DMSA experiment was repeated twice (three weeks before and three weeks after a holiday) after measures had been taken to reduce the mercury emission. The urinary mercury excretion was significantly higher during the 24 hours after DMSA administration in all groups compared with that in the 24 hours before. The bulk (50-70%) of the DMSA stimulated mercury excretion appeared within the first eight hours. In each group, the amount of mercury (microgram Hg/24h) excreted after DMSA was significantly correlated with that before administration of DMSA. The groups whose exposure had ceased, however, exhibited much higher correlation for coefficients (r=0.97 for group B and 0.86 for group C after three weeks of holiday) than those currently exposed to mercury vapour (r-0.66 for group C before and 9.58 after reduction of exposure). The data suggest that after a few days of cessation of occupational exposure to mercury vapour the HgU before and after administration of DMSA mainly reflects the amount of mercury stored in the kidney, which represents a mercury pool with a slow turnover.

PMID: 1851035 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Dmitri]

It is beyond mind-blowing that dentists are STILL putting mercury in peoples' mouths. A known, potent neurotoxin, right where it can off-gas 24/7/365.

Congrats on the procedure and the protocol; I had a similar procedure a few years ago and feel very happy about having mercury out of my mouth.

I read a CDC article that mentions there are now alternatives; I suppose I was given an alternative a few weeks ago since my filling in not even visible or does it even make a difference, is the porcelain filling still mercury? The procedure was done to remove a cavity on one of my front teeth. Now I rarely drink diet soda, the dentist told me I should only drink one a week not every day which is what I used to do.

[ortcloud]

Congrats on stepping up and making the move to get them out.

I had my last one out 2 years ago and really glad I took the initiative.

I think that it is just as important to consider taking the bad things out of
the body rather than just solely trying to put good things in(supplements)

[niner]

I read a CDC article that mentions there are now alternatives; I suppose I was given an alternative a few weeks ago since my filling in not even visible or does it even make a difference, is the porcelain filling still mercury? The procedure was done to remove a cavity on one of my front teeth. Now I rarely drink diet soda, the dentist told me I should only drink one a week not every day which is what I used to do.

Porcelain is a misnomer. It's a composite resin, i.e. a plastic material with an inorganic filler, like silicon dioxide, for toughness. They don't contain any mercury at all. Colas or other drinks that contain phosphoric acid are bad for a variety of reasons. I've stopped them entirely.

I can't help but note that this business of removing fillings for health reasons seems to be rather free of evidence as to its need or efficacy. No shortage of placebo effect, though.

[stephen_b]

I can't help but note that this business of removing fillings for health reasons seems to be rather free of evidence as to its need or efficacy. No shortage of placebo effect, though.

The evidence is perhaps greater that 1) amalgams cause harm compared to the evidence that 2) removing amalgams already in place provides benefit. I acknowledge that [2] doesn't necessarily follow from [1], but for me the cost/benefit came down in favor of removal, particularly since I had a dozen fillings. My decision wasn't motivated by chronic fatigue or any other symptoms, but out of concern for long term health.

This German meta-analysis found in favor of both of these hypotheses, "Amalgam risk assessment with coverage of references up to 2005" (PMID 15789284):

Amalgam, which has been in use in dentistry for 150 years, consists of 50 % elemental mercury and a mixture of silver, tin, copper and zinc. Minute amounts of mercury vapour are released continuously from amalgam. Amalgam contributes substantially to human mercury load. Mercury accumulates in some organs, particularly in the brain, where it can bind to protein more tightly than other heavy metals (e. g. lead, cadmium). Therefore, the elimination half time is assumed to be up to 1 - 18 years in the brain and bones. Mercury is assumed to be one of the most toxic non-radioactive elements. There are pointers to show that mercury vapour is more neurotoxic than methyl-mercury in fish. Review of recent literature suggests that mercury from dental amalgam may lead to nephrotoxicity, neurobehavioural changes, autoimmunity, oxidative stress, autism, skin and mucosa alterations or non-specific symptoms and complaints. The development of Alzheimer's disease or multiple sclerosis has also been linked to low-dose mercury exposure. There may be individual genetical or acquired susceptibilities for negative effects from dental amalgam. Mercury levels in the blood, urine or other biomarkers do not reflect the mercury load in critical organs. Some studies regarding dental amalgam reveal substantial methodical flaws. Removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials. Summing up, available data suggests that dental amalgam is an unsuitable material for medical, occupational and ecological reasons.

StephenB

[Heliotrope]

I had a about 5-6 small Mercury fillings done to my molars when I was around 16 (I'm now 22) , each one a quarter to half the size as stephenB's pics (some appear as metal dots, a couple being relatively large, irregular shaped). They did have alternatives back then (Porcelain), but I thought from my readings and dentist's assurance, the fillings won't poison/kill me, make me dumb due to Neurotoxins etc. It was a quick decision (mostly financial: a lot cheaper with mercury rather than the alternative even w/ insurance. also my fillings are in back molars, not visible when I smile but I still think it's a cosmetic blemish) , and so I had all the fillings done right there then, in a single session.


I don't know how much benefit it'd provide me to have them removed. Or if it's worth the cost-benefit, risk-award ratios.


I wonder just how much toxic vapor they relased, 24/7/365 over these past 6 or 7 years.

The only other major dental work on me is that at 18, I had all 4 wisdom teeth removed.

Edited by HYP86, 06 November 2008 - 08:53 AM.

[JLL]

I have one very large amalgam filling that covers almost half of one tooth. I wish I'd known more about mercury when I had it done; now I'm thinking whether or not I should get it removed. Apparently there's a cavity next to it, too, so they'd have to drill some of the amalgam as well anyway.

[Phoebus]

I have one very large amalgam filling that covers almost half of one tooth. I wish I'd known more about mercury when I had it done; now I'm thinking whether or not I should get it removed. Apparently there's a cavity next to it, too, so they'd have to drill some of the amalgam as well anyway.

if you are going to get some of the amalgam drilled then do yourself a favor and go see a biological dentist who will take the proper precautions. those precautions include a rubber dam and a vaccum vent. if not you will be inhaling and ingesting mercury which is one of the world's most toxic elements.

[Heliotrope]

I had a about 5-6 small Mercury fillings done to my molars when I was around 16 (I'm now 22) , each one a quarter to half the size as stephenB's pics (some appear as metal dots, a couple being relatively large, irregular shaped). They did have alternatives back then (Porcelain), but I thought from my readings and dentist's assurance, the fillings won't poison/kill me, make me dumb due to Neurotoxins etc. It was a quick decision (mostly financial: a lot cheaper with mercury rather than the alternative even w/ insurance. also my fillings are in back molars, not visible when I smile but I still think it's a cosmetic blemish) , and so I had all the fillings done right there then, in a single session.


I don't know how much benefit it'd provide me to have them removed. Or if it's worth the cost-benefit, risk-award ratios.

as additional note, i guess i wonder if it's worth it mostly in terms of my health, if the procedure's botched, i could ingest a lot of mercury at once and kill me. of course, looking for the best dentists on this out there if i ever replace mercury with porcelain, w/ the rubber dams, vaccuum vent/filtration so i don't even get the tiniest piece in my system

[stephen_b]

if you are going to get some of the amalgam drilled then do yourself a favor and go see a biological dentist who will take the proper precautions. those precautions include a rubber dam and a vaccum vent. if not you will be inhaling and ingesting mercury which is one of the world's most toxic elements.

+1. My dentist, in addition to using a dental dam and high volume vacuum suction, did not drill into the filling itself but around it. Drilling across or into an amalgam, which some dentists do, sounds like a bad idea to me.

Stephen

Edited by stephen_b, 07 November 2008 - 11:05 PM.

[LIB]

Just to throw in my 2 cents. I had a filling removed but it wasn't done properly. I became mercury toxic and the only way I've become better is by following the Andy Cutler protocol. Look it up

[lunarsolarpower]

I've said before I would like to see a dental subforum around here as long as the amalgam/fluoride topics could be kept civil and pertinent. I haven't read the whole thing but there appears to be a pretty extensive review article on mercury written by a group of experts at the WHO in 2003. It cites a few articles that should be good news for those concerned that their symptoms may be related to dental amalgams:

Grandjean et al. (1997) evaluated the effects of chelation therapy versus a placebo on improvement for patients who attribute their illness to mercury from amalgam fillings. Of the symptom dimensions studied among the 50 patients examined, overall distress, somatization, obsessive–compulsive, depression, anxiety, and emotional lability were found to be increased. Following administration of succimer (meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid) at 30 mg/kg body weight for 5 days in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, urinary excretion of mercury and lead was considerably increased in the patients who received the chelator. Immediately after the treatment and 5–6 weeks later, most distress dimensions had improved considerably, but there was no difference between the succimer and placebo groups. The findings did not support the idea that mercury had caused the subjective symptoms of the patients.

In a case–referent study of 68 patients with Alzheimer disease and 34 referents, Saxe et al. (1999) observed no relationship between the disease and mercury exposure from amalgam fillings or concentration of mercury in the brain.

Currently in dental school the consensus is that removing an amalgam filling is likely to expose the patient to more mercury than leaving it in for the life of the tooth. Obviously some of this can be mitigated by use of high-speed suction and a dental dam. One effect of dental amalgams I personally don't like is the propensity to stain the tooth structure directly adjacent to the filling over time. This means that someone who later wants to replace their amalgams with esthetic restorations such as composite fillings or porcelain inlays must have additional tooth structure cut away to remove the stain.

As much as many people see amalgams as evil they serve an important role in allowing people to control the disease process in their mouths who would otherwise be unable to do so. Composite resin materials are incredibly expensive and significantly more labor-intensive to place than amalgams and much of the support for keeping amalgam available comes from public health officials seeking to avoid more Deamonte Driver cases.

If I had amalgam fillings in non-esthetic regions I wouldn't be in a rush to have them taken out. However I don't have any and won't be getting any in the future either. One study mentioned at school suggested one would need to have 490 tooth surfaces filled with amalgam to reach a level of mercury release of concern for toxicity reasons. If there are 5 surfaces per tooth and most people have 32 teeth or less... I'll let you do the math.

If you want amalgams replaced for esthetic reasons or for personal peace of mind - go for it. Just understand that in most cases you will need to have additional tooth structure removed (possibly necessitating crowns where you currently have fillings) and my suspicion is there are other places you could better spend the money to improve your life and health.

Also I have a question for those who have done chelation for heavy metals: do any of the protocols involve supplementing the essential minerals that are also removed by the chelating agent? I've wondered this for a while but have never found anything on it.

Edited by lunarsolarpower, 08 November 2008 - 08:39 AM.

[lunarsolarpower]

as additional note, i guess i wonder if it's worth it mostly in terms of my health, if the procedure's botched, i could ingest a lot of mercury at once and kill me.

I very much doubt such a thing is possible. The point of the amalgam is to trap the various metals together in an amalgamation. Swallowing a chunk of amalgam is quite different than drinking elemental mercury. In fact, even that appears to be unlikely to cause harm:

swallowing the contents of a broken thermometer poses little risk because metallic mercury is poorly absorbed by the body and simply exits through the intestines.

reference

[JLL]

Currently in dental school the consensus is that removing an amalgam filling is likely to expose the patient to more mercury than leaving it in for the life of the tooth.

Maybe so... but for some reason the idea of getting one larger dose seems better than years and years of small doses.

If I had amalgam fillings in non-esthetic regions I wouldn't be in a rush to have them taken out. However I don't have any and won't be getting any in the future either. One study mentioned at school suggested one would need to have 490 tooth surfaces filled with amalgam to reach a level of mercury release of concern for toxicity reasons. If there are 5 surfaces per tooth and most people have 32 teeth or less... I'll let you do the math.

I'm aware of this study, but there are countless others, and there seem to be different conclusions. It's quite difficult to estimate the amount of mercury vapor released, as it depends on things like the position of the fillings, chewing etc. which are different from one person to another. In some studies the amount of fillings considered as potentially harmful is quite low, which worries me.

If you want amalgams replaced for esthetic reasons or for personal peace of mind - go for it. Just understand that in most cases you will need to have additional tooth structure removed (possibly necessitating crowns where you currently have fillings) and my suspicion is there are other places you could better spend the money to improve your life and health.

And this is why I haven't yet removed my amalgam filling.

[Phoebus]

swallowing the contents of a broken thermometer poses little risk because metallic mercury is poorly absorbed by the body and simply exits through the intestines.

reference

this is absolute nonense!! this is dangerous and malicious misinformation. malicious not on your part as i am sure you mean well, but the people who posted it originally. did you notice who posted this? a dentist worried that an anti-mercury bill would be passed and he might be on the hook to be sued. its propaganda and misinformation cooked up by conscienceless lawyers.

any mercury can become methylated in the human body. it gets methylated very easily, just like many other substances you ingest. once that happens it becomes one of the most deadly and toxic elements in the world. if you dont believe me do an LD-50 comparison of each element on the periodic table. can you find one that is more toxic than mercury? i haven't yet. do some research on how easily mercury becomes methylated and just how dangerous methylmercury is.

swallowing the entire contents of a mercury thermometer is harmless? i am gob stopped.

ok, here is some research to back me up. compare the MSDS of arsenic and methylmercury.

LD50 of methylmercury is 11 mg/kg for a rat

http://msds.chem.ox....y_chloride.html

LD50 of arsenic is 13 mg/kg for a rat

http://msds.chem.ox....AR/arsenic.html

in other words methylmercury is MORE toxic than arsenic! still think its harmless to ingest?

Edited by Phoebus, 08 November 2008 - 07:38 PM.

[samonakuba]

Hoo boy. I came to this topic after getting my 5th new amalgam filling put in by my dentist, one per month as I'm quite broke at the moment and couldn't afford to get them all in one go. I'd already had about 4 little amalgam dots in various teeth since 2001 or so, but these last few have been much larger. I've still got 2 more to go. Considering that the quantity of mercury in my mouth has gone up about threefold in the past year, I've begun to wonder exactly how safe or unsafe it really is.

I'm still not sure quite what to think about this, but I get the sense that it's probably not quite as definite and terrible as some people say nor anywhere near negligible as the ADA claims. I read somewhere that a person who consumes a lot of fish every day would actually be exposed to enough mercury to cover the equivalent of 54 amalgam-filled teeth, though I can't vouch for the math and don't know if it accounts for the difference in absorption between organic vs. inorganic mercury. Either way, I'm lead to ask: why the hell should I be happy to expose myself to the most dangerous thing about eating a sizable helping of fish when I'm getting none of the health benefits, to say nothing of the fact that I'm reportedly put at even greater risks for acts as simple as grinding my teeth at night (which I might do, I don't know) and chewing gum (which I almost never do, but now wouldn't bother starting)?

What concerns me also, in an area that is hardly alarmist, is the difference in urinary mercury levels per amalgam filling. According to the article, the correlation between number of fillings and urinary concentration isn't negligible.

Now, irrespective of whether it'll cause me any clinical problems (or necessarily would in the general population,) it seems a little silly to simply ignore this issue. The fact that it's divided into anti and pro-amalgam "factions," and the issue gets roped into the sorts of people who write UFO debunkery is thoroughly distasteful, as it's clearly not nothing and I imagine there are people with particular sensitivities who could be greatly affected by it. I scarcely wish to imagine the nightmare of somebody legitimately suffering from a variety of related illnesses, groping slowly and convolutedly to the conclusion that it might actually be their fillings, and being told that their suspicion is a whole lot of quackery.

Regardless, there's no way I could have these amalgams removed any time soon, as I simply don't have the money for it and live in a town where I'd be hard-pressed to find even one dentist with the inclination and proper means to do the procedures, let alone one who would do it well and properly. However, if I ever DO have the money, or some good insurance, and I can be certain that the dentist would do as good a job as Stephen B's seems to have done, I think I would be all for it, just as a simple (and I think, perfectly reasonable) precaution.

Edited by samonakuba, 26 June 2009 - 12:40 PM.

[4eva]

I don't think amalgams do any good for treating any kind of dental disease. It can lead to metal mouth. A person can have silver fillings and gold crowns (on the same tooth) which produces galvanic actions. The result is tattoed tissue that should be removed by surgery. That is not effective treatment by an means.

Mercury can cause problems in the mouth and also spread to other parts of the body. It seems your genotype may determine what organs or body parts are most likely to become toxic with mercury. Some organs - when toxic - are more problematic than others.

Edited by 4eva, 26 June 2009 - 03:35 PM.

[kurt9]

Mercury toxicity is real. The sources of Mercury are 1) Thimerosal in vaccines, 2) dental amalgam, and 3) contact lens solutions prior to about 1989. Although I have never had any dental work done, I did chelate with ALA (alpha lipoic acid) for about 18 months because of Mercury issues from 2) and 3). I am convinced that the majority of allergies and asthma (I had lots of both) are due to Mercury toxicity. Since I have chelated, my asthma is completely gone and my allergies are significantly improved (but not completely gone).

ALA (alpha lipoic acid) is a safe chelation agent. However, the others mentioned in this post can cause problems if not done properly.

I consider Mercury poisoning from the above three sources to be one of the most significant medical issues of our time. One that the medical establishment adamantly refuses to acknowledge for various reasons, mostly related to the protection of the status quo.

I recommend the book on amalgam illness that can be found at www.noamalgam.com.

[NootropicEU]

I have several old type mercury fillings, however my dentist assured me that they only have trace amounts of mercury. He also told me that "mercury filling toxicity" is a myth.

Do you guys really think that I should get them removed?

Edited by anony4mous, 04 July 2009 - 12:19 AM.