or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › Dental › Seeking advice on least toxic fillings?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seeking advice on least toxic fillings?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Hi there!

I am a newby to the world of biologic dentistry and so on, and am just thinking of replacing a few amalgam fillings. The regular dentist I see said she needs to remove sealants to get at decay underneath. Is this wrong?

Also, she was going to remove an amalgam on the top of a molar, because a small cavity was starting on the side of that tooth, and said that having 2 kinds of filling materials on one tooth might cause sensitivity. Well I was planning to replace the amalgam fillings anyway as soon as we can afford it. But she they just use a vaccuum which is supposed to suck away all the mercury vapor upon removal. I saw a biological dentist for a consultation a couple weeks back and they do way more protocol over there for amalgam removal.

I guess I have several questions around this, but my main frustration involves finding a truly nontoxic filling to replace the mercury ones... is there such a thing? What is the closest?

The biologic dentist and the regular one both use a resin, a plastic composite. The biological one said it tends to be the least reactive or whatever. That some people would react more to porcelain and they do biocompatibility testing (but too expensive for me). The regular dentist was like it's way more affordable than porcelain. So is there no way the insurance would cover porcelain? My concern with porcelain is maybe there could be lead in it? But I already know there are issues with plastics and PBDEs or is it PVCs? Maybe that is sealant.

I asked both dentists for the ingredients in this resin composite fillings they use, and they both gave me printouts of a chemical product and company identification information, mentions on the toxicity. Basically it's quite toxic, flammable, etc. but supposed to be inert when solid. However there was no ingredients listed except this vagary: Uncured methacrylate ester 20-35%
Other ingredients: Inert mineral fillers, activators, and stabilizers.

Huh? Yes- but that could mean anything?! I certainly know it's hard to beat mercury on toxicity, but seriously I don't want to replace fillings with, say, some plastic resin that might offgas or fill my body with continually releasing PBEs, PVC, VOCs, PBDE's PABA, Pthalates, or Biphesenol A or B, or any other dang thing that they don't know about yet or aren't disclosing could be a problem until years after I've had them in my mouth 24/7.

The weirdest part about all this for me is that I asked both dentists straight up about IF any of component of the plastic resin was made of a kind of harmful plastic such as PVC, and NEITHER could/would give me a straight answer. Basically they said there's so many ingredients in there, almost like there's no way to know.

This dental practice that I've seen for 20 years- and put in my mercury amalgam fillings! - has only recently, quietly stopped using amalgams but not saying ooh it's bad or advertising why. They should. But all in the name of not being sued, the ADA goes on, I suppose.

And same question goes for my kids should they need any fillings. So far my oldest DD has a couple and we got her porcelain.

Just wish I knew! Would rather have substances known to be not good, such as problematic or potentially so plastics, not in my mouth, even if my body seemed to "prefer" them over the more expensive porcelain or whatever.

Any knowledge or experience over whether porcelain/plastic resin/or ? would be the least toxic?

Comments? Advice? Suggestions? Insights? Feedback? Questions?

I really appreciate this, and need to figure out a plan before my appointment in 2 weeks! (to replace sealants with this resin- holding off on digging out the mercury in a possibly unsafe way). OH and should mention that I am nursing my 16 month old DS.

TIA!
post #2 of 17
Hi - I am sort of new too.

Is there someone who can do muscle testing on which substance is best for you? This should not be too expensive. A chiropractor may be a resource for this. Or you can do it if you know how.

Were either dentist concerned that you were nursing? My natural dentist refused to remove my mercury fillings while I'm nursing. I'm weaning her for multiple health reasons, but this is one of them. He thought maybe 3-4 weeks between mercury removal, then detox program, the resuming nursing, but then he didn't like that either and told me to come back when DD was weaned.

The vacuum is not 100% guaranteed of getting mercury vapors out of your mouth before you breath, it just decreases the amount.

I have no experience with sealants.

I would propose that all materials used for fillings are somewhat toxic, be it plastic or porcelain. My dentist mentioned one of the ingredients was zirconium, which made my heavy metal test finally make sense as the largest component I had was zirconium. This was through hair analysis.

There are health benefits to getting rid of the silver/mercury amalgams. I would not choose any other metal like gold because of the reading I've briefly done on electrical currents in the mouth and how fillings are affected. generally it's supposed to be bad.

Yes - my insurance covered the procelain. It was $50 higher than silver.
post #3 of 17
dental sealants contain BPA and so do some composite fillings. I am trying to find out if all composite contain it. We too have a 5 year old with an appt next week.
post #4 of 17
just found this old thread. all the best info comes from mothering!

http://www.mothering.com/discussions.../t-797960.html
post #5 of 17
post #6 of 17
well after much research and talking to our dentist (who is sooo cool and open to researching all the BPA free alternatives) and our kinisiologist (muscle testing) we have decided that given the options - mercury (yuck!) - composite (which have BPA and possibly flouride) and glass ionomer (which leach flouride, aluminum and arsenic) we will go with the composite. Our kinisiologist says composite are the safest for chemically sensitive people and she has seen no reaction (they are our canaries in the coal mine). My dentist is researching Diamond Lite for the fillings which seems like the cleanest I have found so far. I will keep you all posted on what he finds. This choice is definitely the lesser of three evils....

Interesting info on glass ionomers which seemed great for baby teeth until I read this:
http://sonic.net/kryptox/medicine/pfpc/ionomer.htm

Please post if you find something better!
post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 
cheryl and talia- thanks so much for responding!

talia- is glass ionomer- is it the same as porcelain? are there many kinds of this?
So interesting that that organicgrace website is in your siggie. I have been a natural parenting, everything-organic, crunchy mama for 10 years, and have only just come across this website for the first time, in the last couple days! On my latest search: for organic/nontoxic dresser and bookcases for my children. This website looks awesome!
I would love to have completely nontoxic furnishings in my house. Heck, I would love to build a ecological, nontoxic house from the ground up! It's our dream. But alas, we are still in an apartment. I call them toxic boxes We don't have anything like the means to get a house at this time. My husband is a schoolteacher. Albeit, unemployed at the moment too!
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
So after reading over the links, and googling a bit, I think Diamond Lite or Diamond Crown is also the way I want to go. Not that I know anything about what else may be toxic in it... that may come to light down the road. But for now, at least it seems like the least toxic option, and BPA free and all. So I am wondering, do I inquire if my regular dentist uses it or will get it? Or the bio dentist, who I may need to pay out of pocket and probably a lot more? I just wish I could get the mercury fillings out with the bio dentist, and if she uses diamond lite, then good. Otherwise, I have to go with holes in my teeth to whoever I can find using diamond lite?
post #9 of 17
i don't think porcelian and glass ionomer are the same. i would probably see if your dentist will use the diamond lite but if not you will have to save up.....
post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tara2 View Post
talia- is glass ionomer- is it the same as porcelain?
not at all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_porcelain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ionomer_cement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_...ative_material

i would stick with composite. the amount of bpa in the worst possible composite is so tiny compared to the amount of mercury in any amalgam.

nak
post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 
Sleepless Mommy- or anyone else who knows

Thanks so much everyone for the responses. Duh, despite my searches was unable to find a comparison of fillings such as is found in wikipedia didnt think to look there.

Anyhoo, had sort of a falling out with my regular dentist. She does not use diamond lite and has no interest of doing so. I could try to go with her and ues porcelain. But i may not be going back to her at all mainly because of attitude issues. I get that porcelain may crack a tooth, because my DD had a porcelain filling in a baby tooth (when we lived in another town and had different insurance) and now has half a tooth where that was. It's loose, so am thinking not to re-fill that one, but let it come out and go from there.

Does anyone know, just if one could compare porcelain toxicity versus diamond lite or other less toxic composite resin which would be least toxic?

When it comes down to it, least toxic is really, really important to me and my family.
post #12 of 17
This is an aside, I haven't researched all the filling materials, but the way my dentist explained it to me was that the composite was best because it actually bonds to the tooth permanently, whereas the others just sit right next to the tooth like asphalt pavement. This means they expand and contract and over time, stuff gets in there to cause new decay. With composite, it is bonded so nothing can get in there.

I certainly understand your concerns about toxicity, I have multiple chemical sensitivities, on the lower end of the spectrum, but I have to be careful too.
post #13 of 17

the answer is GOLD, yes, gold....research it.. you can do gold crowns and gold inlays or onlays instead of a filling. reasurch it and let me know what you found. good luck.

post #14 of 17

Feel free to go to drvinograd.com and watch the uploaded video on my last talk at the Gerson Institute.

I speak about dental material options that may address your question.

 

Warm Regards

post #15 of 17

Dental gold is not the same as pure gold. Please research further and you will fins a number of additional metals being used. Having said that, it may still be preferable to other materials.

In my practice we are using unglazed bruxzir, in my opinion the most biocompatible restorative material today. :-)

post #16 of 17

Hi

Im in the same boat you were in 2010. My naturopath has rec to get rid of my 9 amalgam fillings. My dentist uses Filtek. Just curious to know what you decided to replace your amalgams with?

post #17 of 17
DrDaniel, isn't Bruxzir a crown rather than a filling? Don't all crowns (porcelain, zirconia, gold, etc.) still have to be cemented with resin composite anyway? So what is the difference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dental
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › Dental › Seeking advice on least toxic fillings?