Mothering › Forums › Health › Health and Healing › Dental › mercury (amalgam filling) verus estrogen (composite)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

mercury (amalgam filling) verus estrogen (composite)

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
My 8yo has an appointment in April to get fillings in four of her baby teeth. The dentist is recommending amalgam fillings (which have mercury), but is willing to use composite if we decide that's what we want.

I'm concerned because I've been learning about how the sealant in composite fillings leaks estrogen into the body, which can cause serious health effects. However, from what I've learned thus far, I think mercury is more toxic than estrogen. After all, estrogen is a human hormone (only dangerous in high levels), whereas I don't think mercury has any place in human composition.

So, I welcome any and all input as I strive to make the most-educated decision I can in April. And hope this thread can be helpful to others as well. Thank you!
post #2 of 8
ABSOLUTELY NO AMALGAM FILLINGS! See this smoking tooth video:

http://www.iaomt.com/videos/

Composites will last a decade or more - stuff out there is getting better everyday. Plus composites adhere to the teeth whereas amalgams just kind of sit in there, so there's no worries of leakage.

There are BPA-free composites out there - it may be hard to find. Check these:

http://www.livingnetwork.co.za/drcla...ntal_list.html

http://www.livingnetwork.co.za/drcla...etal-free.html

IMO, anything is better than mercury. BPA supposedly has a short halflife in the body, so it may not be as bad. Mercury is 30 years, and you should see all these people who are mercury-toxic (including myself). I'm also chelating. We are exposed to so much estrogen these days that it's almost inevitable. Pesticides has the highest estrogen, so if you're not, you can start by going organic and avoiding BPA plastics and canned foods.
post #3 of 8
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FluffiB View Post
ABSOLUTELY NO AMALGAM FILLINGS! See this smoking tooth video:

http://www.iaomt.com/videos/
Oh, wow! That is some compelling evidence.

Quote:
Composites will last a decade or more - stuff out there is getting better everyday. Plus composites adhere to the teeth whereas amalgams just kind of sit in there, so there's no worries of leakage.
Yes, it seems like composites must be easier for dentists to do, plus it sounds like they are actually longer-lasting and less likely to damage teeth than amalgams. It makes me wonder if the current preference, among many dentists, to use amalgam, might be related to the creation of more need for dental work in the future, since they drill away more of the tooth which weakens it, etcetera.

Quote:
There are BPA-free composites out there - it may be hard to find. Check these:

http://www.livingnetwork.co.za/drcla...ntal_list.html

http://www.livingnetwork.co.za/drcla...etal-free.html
Thank you! I will have to see if we can get something BPA-free.

Quote:
IMO, anything is better than mercury. BPA supposedly has a short halflife in the body, so it may not be as bad. Mercury is 30 years, and you should see all these people who are mercury-toxic (including myself). I'm also chelating. We are exposed to so much estrogen these days that it's almost inevitable. Pesticides has the highest estrogen, so if you're not, you can start by going organic and avoiding BPA plastics and canned foods.
Yes, we are trying to grow more of our own produce to avoid all the pesticides, but it's slow-going. And organic is usually beyond our means.
post #4 of 8
IMO you should not even go to the office of a dentist who uses mercury, it gets all over the office, and most amalgum using dentists don't follow OSHA. However, you DEFINITELY want to get composite, BPA free if you can. In baby teeth, I might also consider Glass Ionomer. They don't last as long as composite, but baby teeth don't last more than 8 years.

I just learned that Mercury has estrogenic effects too, so the estrogen issue isn't even that strong. Also sealants have more BPA than any composite filling.
post #5 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post
I just learned that Mercury has estrogenic effects too, so the estrogen issue isn't even that strong. Also sealants have more BPA than any composite filling.
I'd like to read more about this. Do you have any citations that you would recommend? TIA!
post #6 of 8
I don't off hand, it has to do with Alligators though. I would just google Mercury Estrogen or Estrogenic and see what you find! <3
post #7 of 8
what about sealants that are used on kids' teeth? my DD has hereditary bad teeth - nothing we do makes one bit of difference, but knock on wood, she hasn't had any infections since sealants.
post #8 of 8
Unfortunately, the sealants put off more BPA than the composite fillings, I've heard tell.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dental
Mothering › Forums › Health › Health and Healing › Dental › mercury (amalgam filling) verus estrogen (composite)