Amalgam vs. Composite

[bobquasit]

I forgot to mention that one other advantage of the dental process was that my old filling was amalgam, while the new one is composite. My dentist won't even use amalgam any more; it's too toxic. And yet my dental insurer won't cover the cost of composite. They only pay for amalgam, and the difference in cost comes out of my pocket.

But the mercury in dental amalgam is incredibly toxic; it actually has to be disposed of as toxic waste. And the procedure required to place it in a tooth unnecessarily destroys large amount of healthy tooth as well. Why hasn't amalgam been banned in the US?

Comments

[bobquasit.livejournal.com]

I forgot to mention that Teri recently had ALL her old amalgam fillings pulled and replaced with composite. I'm a bit tempted to follow her lead!

I suspect that the practice of putting mercury in people's mouths will be regarded by future generations with the same amused contempt that we view the use of leaches by medieval physickers.

[(Anonymous)]

sounds to me like grounds for a class action suit!

flight

Necessary amalgam

[(Anonymous)]

You are otherwise right about composite fillings, but you forgot that sometimes it cannot be used. This happened to me, when my backmost tooth had to be filled. The dentist tried to use composite filling, but she couldn't keep it dry enough to stick so she had to take it of and replace it with amalgam. Amalgam is worse than composite, but it cannot be banned for sometimes its the only option. This is the lesson I learned from the most painful experience of my life.

Amalgam fillings are safe

[(Anonymous)]

"There is overwhelming evidence that mercury-amalgam fillings are safe."

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

In fact, replacing amalgam fillings with composite ones will give you more mercury exposure than leaving them in - but still nowhere near enough to do harm, as far as can be determined.