digg Digg  StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  del.icio.us Delicious  Attention, open in a new window. PrintE-mail

Mercury Dental Fillings May Harm Pregnant Women, Kids

Dental exam for a child
©istockphoto.com/Jason Lugo
Mercury amalgam dental fillings may harm young children, pregnant women, nursing women and those with compromised immune systems, now warns the FDA.

DENTAL DANGER: Consumer advocacy groups are pushing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ban mercury used in dental amalgam fillings. Although a ban doesn't look likely, the government may issue restrictions on amalgam fillings by next year.

A recent lawsuit forced the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to warn people about the possible dangers of mercury in dental fillings for some people, especially pregnant women and young children. The FDA is also expected to release stricter guidelines next year regarding amalgam use.

FDA Changes Position on Mercury Dental Fillings

For years, the FDA said amalgam fillings were safe. However, after a recent settlement with consumer advocacy groups such as Moms Against Mercury, the FDA now recognizes mercury's possible harmful effects on the following:

  • pregnant women
  • nursing women
  • young children
  • people with compromised immune systems
  • people sensitive to mercury exposure
  • unborn children

The FDA posted new information on its Web site about mercury amalgam's possible risks:

  • "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses."
  • "Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner." (Reuters, 6/4/08)

According to FDA spokeswoman Mary Peper Long, more than likely the FDA will not ban amalgam fillings. Instead, its new guidelines as of July 2009 may restrict the use of amalgam in some patients.

Charles Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs, said, "Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA's claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe." (Reuters, 6/4/08)

Worries over Mercury Dental Fillings

Groups such as Moms Against Mercury and Consumers for Dental Choice say mercury fillings may trigger health problems, including...

  • Alzheimer's disease
  • brain damage
  • irritability (erethism)
  • kidney damage
  • migraines
  • multiple sclerosis

The Environmental Protection Agency lists mercury as a neurotoxin. It can interfere with brain development and cognitive and motor skills.

The American Dental Association (ADA) considers amalgam safe, as does the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

More Mercury Research Needed, FDA Says

The FDA started reviewing the use of mercury fillings in 2002. In 2006, a panel of independent advisers reviewed 34 studies and found no evidence that fillings cause problems in patients.

They did say, however, that the risks can't be quantified until they see short-term exposure studies in specific groups of patients.

Copyright © 2009 Informify

Informify by Email!


Question for Readers:

Would you pay more for the less effective alternatives to amalgam to avoid exposure to mercury?

When you have a cavity in a tooth, your dentist removes the decay and then fills the area with a filling. In the past, most fillings were "dental amalgams," made up of the following materials:

  • mercury—40%
  • silver—37%
  • tin—16%
  • copper—6%
  • zinc—1%

Dentists have used amalgam for more than 100 years. It's popular for several reasons:

  • inexpensive
  • strong
  • durable
  • discourages bacterial growth

Mercury Amalgam Fillings Declining
More than 100 million Americans have mercury dental amalgams, according to the American Dental Association.

More and more people now choose alternatives to amalgams because of growing worries about mercury safety. In 2003, dentists used amalgam in only 30% of 150 million fillings they placed in patients.

Alternatives to amalgam include the following:

  • cement
  • composite resins
  • glass
  • metals like gold
  • porcelain

However, dentists say amalgam fillings are stronger, cheaper and last longer than the above alternatives.

(Sources: Wikipedia, Amercan Dental Association)

Responses (5)add comment

Cruelty

Darrell Pruitt from Fort Worth, Texas said:
I know someone with Alzheimer's disease. I wouldn't want to be responsible for putting the person through unnecessary dental work. Would you?
June 24, 2008

Are you kidding?

James Love from Tulsa, OK said:
Dear Dr. Pruitt: I didn't mean for my quiet celebration to delude you into believing that I had latent concerns about the dangers of BPA. BPA exposure is a concern, but the primary source of BPA is drinking bottles, not restorative materials. Risk assessment studies demonstrate that BPA levels derived from composite resins are safe. Conversely, risk assessment studies demonstrate that the mercury levels derived from dental amalgam fillings exceed toxic thresholds. Sadly, dentists have been persuaded to believe that the quantity of mercury derived from dental amalgma fillings is safe. This contention has been disproved over and over again. Mercury exposure (the primary source of which is your teeth) is now implicated in Alzheimer's Disease. Nevertheless, brain-washed denists like you continue to insist that a little toxic mercury is a good thing. I'm afraid that you and your ilk have caused a great deal of human suffering. It's not about politics, Dr. Pruitt, it's about the science. Take some time and read it.
June 23, 2008

A quiet balance

Darrell Pruitt from Fort Worth, Texas said:
It has been a little over a week since we discussed amalgam fillings on this forum. In that short time, I have noticed that the consumer advocacy groups have become very quiet on the Internet about their long-fought victory - causing permanent damage to the availability of amalgam - a beautiful material for repairing teeth with a proven track record of 150 years.

Do you find it odd that anti-amalgam activists are not celebrating? After all, the FDA handed them what they wanted. Toxicity of dental amalgam was confirmed using an applause meter. That is called political science.

I think the silence from anti-amalgam activists is because of the BPA scare. Word is getting around and nobody in the consumer advocacy crowd wants to step forward to defend BPA.

Of course, to condemn both is a fool’s choice. Silence could be nice. Darrell Pruitt DDS

June 21, 2008

Pick your poison

Darrell Pruitt from Fort Worth, Texas said:
Plastic-based dental composite, the alternative to the more durable and cheaper dental amalgam, is very useful because composites can be bonded to teeth and are more esthetically pleasing. They offer advantages that amalgam cannot, even if the material wears away faster than amalgam in back teeth - where the chewing forces are greatest and esthetics is less of a concern.

My patients benefit from both materials. I would hate to lose the availability of either one to popularity and politics. Beyond these two, there are no reliable dental filling materials unless one uses gold or porcelain - very expensive, and much more invasive restorations.

Those who are quick to condemn the mercury in amalgam probably don't realize that composites contain bisphenol-A, or BPA.

BPA in humans behaves like estrogen - possibly disrupting hormonal balances. There is concern that long term low dose BPA may induce chronic toxicity in humans. At the same time that the FDA is investigating the safety of amalgam, it is also questioning the safety of BPA.

"At this time, FDA is not recommending that anyone discontinue using products that contain BPA while we continue our risk assessment process. However, concerned consumers should know that several alternatives to polycarbonate baby bottles exist, including glass baby bottles."
http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/bpa.html

The FDA could have also said, "In dentistry, there is an alternative to BPA-leaching composites. It is dental amalgam."

The ADA correctly defends the safety of composites just as strongly as it defends the safety of amalgam - basing its recommendations on decades of rigorous study rather than lay popularity.

If it is determined that dentists simply cannot fill teeth without endangering patients, can I turn off the lights, lock the door and go home? Darrell Pruitt DDS
June 09, 2008

missing the point

Dorice from NY said:
The point of the question infers that economics takes priority over exposure. Ironically, the related exposures to mercury may cause greater costs in addressing adverse health effects. Moreover, on an environmental bases dental waste is significant source of mercury release via the waste stream, which has costly cosequences.
June 08, 2008

Write your response below to question above
The administrator has closed this article for responses.

busy
Submit your good news story!
Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Managing Your E-News Subscription  |  Previous Newsletters
Copyright © 2009 Informify. All Rights Reserved.