Jump to content

Talk:Amalgam (dentistry)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Composition of amalgam used in dentistry is innaccurate

[edit]

The article states: Conventional amalgam alloy commonly consists of silver (~65% ), tin (~29%), copper (~8%) and other trace metals; current amalgam alloy consists of silver (40%), tin (32%), copper (30%) and other metals.[12]

However both of these alloys must be incorrect as the total content of silver tin and copper is over 100 %. In addition there must also be some mercury, which is not even mentioned. EV1TE (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam Controversy

[edit]

They're several health professionals out there who believe dental amalgam restoration is regarded as a host to many dental diseases. Acncedotal cases report hugely influence some individuals. Steve Jeckson performs and in-depth investigation upon this element and analyses the data supporting and condemning the use of amalgam restoration. He reviewed articles from both peer-reviewed and non-peered review [1] sources and evaluated their significant relevance. Many experts, however, some has pointed out a range of logical and methodological errors in the anti-amalgam literature, in fact, the author has even concluded that evidence supporting the safety of amalgam restoration is quite compelling. Currently, amalgam restoration procedures are recognized by many institutions as safe and effective, however ethically, dentist still should educate their patients about the dangers of amalgam before allowing their patients to undergo surgery.

References

  1. ^ http://www.greenwich-dentist.co.uk/dental-amalgam-toxicity-controversy
[edit]

In the "Dental amalgam toxicity controversy" section, the text to external link 1 is inaccurate and lacks neutrality. The link is described as "University of Calgary video on Brain Degeneration caused by Mercury Fillings." But the actual UC video is titled, "How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration [emphasis ours]." It is not titled, How Mercury Fillings Cause Brain Neuron Degeneration, because no part of it shows fillings causing brain neuron degeneration.

The video shows the use of a pipette to deliver drops of mercury to neurons growing in a petri dish. About 1/5 of the way through (no minutes:seconds are given), animation shows a pipette in the upper right, then zooms in to the petri dish containing purple growth media. Slightly past the 1/2 way point, following the time-lapse video of the actual mercury and neurons, the animation again shows the pipette in the upper right. Then the pipette dispenses drops of mercury onto the neuron. Nowhere does the video show mercury being dispensed or otherwise released from a dental filling. A dental filling is not used.

In the introduction, the narrator notes, "Over the past fifteen years, medical research laboratories have established that dental amalgam tooth fillings are a major contributor to mercury body burden." Certainly, from this video one may *infer* that mercury vapor from amalgam may degenerate neurons just like the mercury drops from the pipette; indeed, UC's narrative suggests that this inference be made. However, UC is careful to describe the experiment accurately, as it was actually done.

The "Dental amalgam toxicity controversy" is a section in an encyclopedia, so its purpose is not to debate, but to describe elements of the existing debate in accurate, neutral terms. Describing the video as depicting how mercury from fillings causes brain neuron degeneration is inaccurate, somewhat overreaching, and lacks neutrality. So we suggest that the video be described precisely as UC describes it. The link should read, "University of Calgary video on 'How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration.'" Self Family (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right, I have removed it. If we really need this video, it should go at Dental amalgam controversy (which currently has plenty of external links). - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section: inaccurate representation of sources

[edit]

I checked one source. I marked what seemed to be the corresponding texts in bold, and underlined the possible conflicts: mercury from amalgam vs. health care facilities; total mercury emissions vs. releases in wastewater; 53% of total emissions is about the UK only; one-third seems to be specific for Canada.

Article:
The WHO reports that mercury from amalgam accounts for 5% of total mercury emissions and that when combined with waste mercury from laboratory and medical devices, represents 53% of total mercury emissions.[19] Separators may dramatically decrease the release of mercury into the public sewer system, where dental amalgams contribute one-third of the mercury waste,[19] but they are not required in the United States.

Reference 19:

Contribution from the health-care sector and Regulation
Health-care facilities are one of the main sources of mercury release into the atmosphere because of emissions from the incineration of medical waste. The Environment Minister of the Canadian province of Ontario declared on December 2002 that emissions from incinerators were the fourth-largest source of mercury.
In the United States, according to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a 1997 report, medical waste incinerators may have been responsible for as much as 10% of all mercury air releases.
Health-care facilities are also responsible for mercury pollution taking place in water bodies from the release of untreated wastewater. According to a 1999 report, health-care facilities may also have been responsible for as much as 5% of all mercury releases in wastewater. Environment Canada estimates that more than one-third of the mercury load in sewage systems is due to dental practice.
Dental amalgam is the most commonly used dental filling material. It is a mixture of mercury and a metal alloy. The normal composition is 45-55% mercury; approximately 30% silver and other metals such as copper, tin and zinc. In 1991, the World Health Organization confirmed that mercury contained in dental amalgam is the greatest source of mercury vapour in non-industrialized settings, exposing the concerned population to mercury levels significantly exceeding those set for food and for air.
According to a report submitted to the OSPAR Commission, in the United Kingdom, annually 7.41 tonnes of mercury from dental amalgam are discharged to the sewer, atmosphere or land, with another 11.5 tonnes sent for recycling or disposed with the clinical waste stream. Together, mercury contained in dental amalgam and in laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions.
Waste incineration and crematoria are also listed as major sources of mercury emissions. Many countries, such as Armenia, Cameroon, Ghana, Honduras, Pakistan, and Peru, recognize the contributions from hospital thermometers, dental amalgams, hospital waste and/or medical waste incinerators but lack quantitative data. Despite the lack of data, there is good reason to believe that mercury releases from the health sector in general are substantial.
Some countries have restricted the use of mercury thermometers or have banned them without prescription. A variety of associations have adopted resolutions encouraging physicians and hospitals to reduce and eliminate their use of mercury containing equipment.

The Dental amalgam controversy article also presents the 53% and one third as global figures ... DS Belgium (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences vs. insurance

[edit]

It may be worth noting (if reliable sources can be identified) that while many dentists now prefer to use only composite materials, many dental insurance plans will only pay for amalgam (because it is cheaper). Perhaps the "controversy" article says this, but it does seem to be relevant to this article as well. A source that indicated exactly how much cheaper would be useful, as would recent data on the relative use of amalgam and composite fillings in some large English-speaking country. 121a0012 (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source IIRC in the UK you can get composite fillings in your front teeth on the NHS but if you want composite fillings in your back teeth you have to have them done privately. 94.6.24.111 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I removed a paragraph from the controversy section stating that Norway, Denmark and Sweden have banned silver amalgam. This was an unsourced statement that cited a Long Island dental office in the business of removing these fillings. The domain name was laserfillings dot com. The controversy section is much better put together without it. Bananabananabanana (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did not do a basic research on the subject or intentionally misinforming/disinforming. Anyways, here are some examples sources:
"(Feb. 23, 2009) On January 15, 2009, the Swedish government introduced a blanket ban on mercury. Regulations governing the ban enter into force on June 1, 2009. As a result, such practices as the use of dental amalgam in fillings will be prohibited and products containing the non-degradable element may not marketed domestically. [...]"
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2009-02-23/sweden-ban-on-mercury/
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2009/01/22/22-sweden-bans-remaining-uses-of-mercury.aspx
Please restore what you have removed. 73.9.112.141 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgam Causes Genetic Behavior Defects in Boys: Study

[edit]

http://www.mddionline.com/article/amalgam-causes-genetic-behavior-defects-boys-study

and

"Five hundred seven children, 8–12 years of age at baseline, participated in a clinical trial to evaluate the neurobehavioral effects of Hg fromdental amalgamtooth fillings in children ..." ... These findings are the first to demonstrate genetic susceptibility to the adverse neurobehavioral effects of Hg exposure in children " http://iaomt.guiadmin.com/wp-content/uploads/Woods-JS-et-al-2012-Modification-neurobehavioral-effects-of-mercury-by-CPOX4-in-children_Neurotox-Teratology.pdf --84.1.198.213 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of amalgam in Scandinavia

[edit]

Hi. Im Danish and last week I had an amalgam filling done here in Denmark. The Reuters article referred to as stating that amalgam filling is illegal/banned in Denmark (and Scandinavia) is wrong and superficial at best. If anyone want to inform on the laws about amalgam filling in Scandinavia, please refer to these specific laws. It should be easy if they exists. RhinoMind (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have one possible answer to the issue I raised. But please be aware, that it is just an idea of mine and I cannot document it at the moment. My idea:
Amalgam is indeed increasingly viewed as unwanted in Scandinavian dentistry (I am not disputing that), but it might be seen as a good solution in some instances though:
  • Composite fillings are not always strong enough to withstand the heavy chewing and pressure encountered in the back of the mouth.
  • Larger amalgam fillings might sometimes break and will require either repair or a complete removal and new filling. In these instances repairing with amalgam, might be the best solution. Mainly because it is cheap, easy and not exceedingly time consuming. Removing amalgam fillings might also be more healthcompromising than leaving it.
The socalled "ban" on amalgam in Scandinavia could be confused with an outphasing of applying amalgam to new cavity fillings and in children and teenagers. RhinoMind (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"(Feb. 23, 2009) On January 15, 2009, the Swedish government introduced a blanket ban on mercury. Regulations governing the ban enter into force on June 1, 2009. As a result, such practices as the use of dental amalgam in fillings will be prohibited and products containing the non-degradable element may not marketed domestically. [...]"
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2009-02-23/sweden-ban-on-mercury/
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2009/01/22/22-sweden-bans-remaining-uses-of-mercury.aspx 73.9.112.141 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


PS. In my case, a large (and old) amalgam filling in my Mandibular first molar broke and it was repaired with amalgam. I was not too happy about refilling with amalgam, because of the health issues, but rethinking the situation I feel ok about it, for these reasons:

  • I could not have afforded a complete removal and refilling with composite material at the moment.
  • I had amalgam already and refilling a small hole would not be a big difference to my overall situation.
  • I am not sure a composite material filling could survive in my molars for long.
  • I am not completely convinced, that mercury vapours from amalgam is as large or dangerous as many health-sites claims. I would like to dig into the subject before making my own conclusions at least.
  • It solved my problem quickly, giving me time to think about the future. Should I replace it at some point with composite material, etc.?

RhinoMind (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna comparison

[edit]

Studies have shown that the amount of mercury released during normal chewing is extremely low. A tuna fish sandwich releases the same amount of mercury as 3-5 amalgam fillings.

The source is a "post" on a dentist website, no references given at all. I assume he's talking about the amount of mercury ingested when eating a sandwich. And that's equal to the amount from 3-5 fillings during what period, while you are chewing it, or the total amount during your lifetime? Or something in between? Ssscienccce (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forked content - Dental amalgam controversy

[edit]

There is an article for Dental amalgam controversy, then Amalgam (dentistry) and Mercury poisoning.

Wikipedia tries not to repeat the development of content. Persons wishes to write about the dental amalgam controversy should do so at the article for that, and not at the articles for amalgam or mercury poisoning. Those articles should link to the "dental amalgam controversy" article, so that discussion can be centralized. I am looking at these articles now and intend to merge all content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to the controversy article, then make sections in each of those articles based on the lede of the controversy article.

My intent is to direct people to the controversy article if they want to read about the controversy. Please discuss my doing this only at Talk:Dental_amalgam_controversy, not on the talk pages of the other articles, to the extent that it is reasonable to have this conversation in one place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basic function

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be anything on this page about what amalgam does that makes it useful to dentists other than a passing reference to its durability. I wonder if someone could see their way to adding a bit near the top for laymen to get an introduction to how amalgam works in dentistry, from a top down view. I only learnt that it sets for example from a heading; the contents of that heading are incomprehensible or at least irrelevant to the "pub quiz" level of knowledge I was hoping for (in addition to the detail, which I'm sure useful for those with a greater understanding of the topic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.123.42 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Complete review for basic functions

[edit]

As far as talking about setting reaction ,it might took more than 6years to understand that too for some well experienced person in dentistry.Even though I am a dentist,it took me 6yrs to understand it properly...What I thought was it should not take more than 15 minutes to understand ,thats why I explained only setting reaction in lay man language which will help other dentists to understand and thus they can easily explain to their collegues.The hardest and confusing part of amalgam is to understand setting reaction.And talking about basic functions,then why dont you attempt to edit by taking complete review from internet.? sidsandyy (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amalgam (dentistry). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly written unsophisticated article

[edit]

This is my first venture into a dentistry related article on Wikipedia, and I am surprised how poorly written it is. I mean, take just the opening lines:

An amalgam is an alloy composed of mercury and other metals.[1] Dental amalgam is produced by mixing liquid mercury with an alloy made of silver, tin, and copper solid particles.[1] Small quantities of zinc, mercury and other metals may be present in some alloys.[1] This combination of solid particles is known as amalgam alloy.[1]

which contains multiple contradictions and inconsistencies. An amalgam is an alloy that includes mercury, so it is misleading to state that "mercury ... may be present". Then, it is redundant (and wrong) to define something as an "amalgam alloy", which is redundant (and wrong)! If I knew something about this topic, I would be prompted to completely rewrite it, but at this point I just find it completely untrustworthy - and I especially distrust anything in the sections about controversy over toxicity. Verytas (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section was significantly expanded in a recent edit. The same editor reworked it whilst adding more information in a subsequent edit. Presently, the lead section may be more informative (and possibly better in other ways), but it has become somewhat unwieldy and less exacting in standard of writing, to the point that it no longer seems to provide a meaningful or even accessible overview of (or introduction to) the article.
Perhaps the best solution would be to return the lead section to an earlier version whilst distributing the detail among the article's sections where appropriate. Pololei (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the suggested edit, moving most of the detailed content unaltered to a new "Composition" section. Pololei (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a really badly written article - from a lay-person's perspective it doesn't actually explain why or how amalgam is used - maybe a clear paragraph at the top explaining method of application, before launching into history or health concerns? Much of what follows really should be deleted.
Anyway I've added a few sentences to the top section to provide that context. Chris (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective accusation.

[edit]

The smells spread all over the world. Supposedly, - Amalgam - Patients & Amalgam - Dentists look for a well-trained anti- Amalgam lawyer. (To file a civilian suit, to assign court to the court that the amalgam - plombage can even cause harm to the state 's president and the Federal Chancellor.Amalgam Patient (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the article should show what countries it is used in

[edit]

it is not used in norway anymore. they have switched entirely to plastic fillings.84.212.111.156 (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago, a dentist in Switzerland told me that the technique of using amalgam for fillings was no longer even taught in Swiss dental schools. The only procedure concerning amalgam fillings still taught is how to remove them safely and replace them with something else. It is not correct, however, that dentists switched entirely to resin ("plastic") fillings. Metal inlays (mainly gold) are still used because they have better wear characteristics than other materials. Ceramic jacket crowns are also used. Longitude2 (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage sum of constituents exceeds 100%

[edit]
"current amalgam alloy consists of silver (40%), tin (32%), copper (30%) and other metals.[11]" Sum (40+32+30) exceeds 100%; please resolve.

12.33.223.211 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amalgam_(dentistry)&oldid=1214843672"