So you probably have heard about the controversy surrounding amalgam fillings - but did you know that basically every type of material used for fillings has certain toxicity issues? Its basically a matter of choosing your poison and which you would rather be exposed to, rather than being able to avoid all toxins all together.
I recently became interested in the subject when I found out I had to get 3 fillings for the first time in my life, as the result I think of my decline in health since having 3 children so close together and having to deal with the health effects of extreme fatigue, hormone changes and a lowered immune system as a result. Having to research which option I would choose for myself lead me to want to share this information with others as it was quite the process to find all the information about the various products that are available.
Here is a review of the various procedures and what they are composed of:
Amalgam: Mercury, Silver, Tin, Copper and Zinc *Mercury is the main poison ;-) Amalgams tend to be rather hard wearing and relatively cheap filling material, making it widely used and available throughout the world.
Plastic Composite Fillings: Synthetic Plastic Resins which include a long list of various chemicals known to have very toxic, allergenic and cytotoxic potential, some of the highest concern is over Bisphenol A, a hormone mimicker. It is usually more expensive than Amalgam fillings, and has some inherant problems such as shrinkage, not sealing the hole properly resulting in continued degradation over time of the cavity etc. In Europe now in most places, Amalgam's are not even being used, so your options are usually limited to Plastic composites (Said to last between 5-8 years) or Porcelein, unless you ask specifically for Gold fillings.
Porcelein: Main concern is the radioactive metals added to the porcelain mixture in order to make it flourescant like real teeth as well as penetrable with xrays. Much more expensive than either Amalgams or Plastic Composites. They are usually used as veneers on the frontal teeth, as crowns and for artificial teeth, although because Porcelain is very fragile and solid, it can cause wear on the opposing teeth as well as being very susceptible to cracking. A typical dental feldspathic glass contains approximately the following proportion of constituents. (The porcelain contains refractory crystalline elements as well.) Composed of: Silica 60-65% Aluminum oxide 15-20% Boric oxide 5-10% Potash (K2O) 5-10% Soda (Na2O) 2-7% Other Oxides ** This is where the radioactive metals are incorporated, usually uranium, thorium.1-3% (oxides of iron impart a brown color, copper oxide produces a green color, small amounts of titanium oxide produce a yellowish brown color, cobalt oxide imparts a blue color, Manganese oxide produces a lavender color, Zirconium, uranium, cerium, titanium and tin oxides, when used as refractory crystals produce opacity
http://www.doctorspiller.com/ceramics_3.htm
GOLD as the final Option:
(And in my opinion for any work needing to be done that doesn't really get seen, it is the safest, most long lasting and durable as well as being the least toxic of all options)
Although Gold costs considerably more than Amalgams or Plastic Composites, considering the fact that it is likely to last most of your life, or longer, it is a very good investment as it likely will not need replacing (hence no replacement costs) and it shrinks and expands most like your other teeth, enabling it to adjust to your teeth without wearing down opposing teeth.
The average gold filling contains about 75% gold with the other main ingredients being palladium and silver. (There are a few other less common ingredients such as Platinum, Copper and Zinc.) These are far more preferable to the other metals included in porcelain and Plastic resins in order to cure the ingredients and add colour etc. Gold, Platinum, Copper and Zinc all have natural antibacterial properties, making it an even better choice for your dental work as they naturally prevent further bacterial infection in that area of the mouth and also likely in the whole mouth as saliva will be breaking down the metals in the mouth and creating a solution of ionic particles which helps to sterilize the whole mouth area.
As of course with any other information about toxins, the potential exposure and actual exposure can be quite different, so even if you do have any of these fillings in your mouth already, that doesn't mean you are definitely suffering effects from them, it depends on a number of factors - the rate of leaching, your body's overall health and well being, pH in your mouth, etc... so I hope no-one freaks out when reading this and thinks they need to get everything removed now and switch all to Gold!
I have had some clients who have come in with a mouth full of amalgam fillings that don't react at all to them, and don't exhibit any signs of toxicity from them at all, and others that are obviously sensitive to them, so it just depends on your body's tolerance levels, reactivity, sensitivity and overall health.
This just gives the information about what the possible effects are from each type. Ie. if you are already having hormonal problems or are estrogen dominant (ie. predisposition to breast cancer, uterine cancer or at risk for cancers), you might want to avoid plastic fillings which mimic estrogen hormone function, and if you are having immune problems, porcelain might be best avoided due to the suppressive effects of the radioactive metals, or if you are already very sensitive with your nervous system or impaired in your memory or mental function, it might be wise to avoid mercury amalgam fillings etc...
----------------
So here are some details about the research I found and some snippets of articles that I read on what is in each type of filling and why it is of concern:
----------------
Amalgam: (The typically referred to Silver fillings)
Amalgam is composed of 43% to 54% by weight of mercury and the remaining powder is made up of mainly silver (~20-35%)[2] and some tin, copper (~10%), and zinc (~2%).
Amalgam has been typically chosen in the past because it is predominantly cheap, easy to manipulate, place and is relatively long lasting. However, the main concerns with Amalgam fillings is the way in which the Mercury leaches out of the filling into the saliva and therefore into the body. Methyl Mercury vapour which is released from the mercury in the filling under certain conditions is also a major concern, as this is often more toxic to the body than the mercury metal itself.
Scientists agree that mercury amalgam fillings expose the bearers to a daily dose of mercury, but the level and effects of the chronic exposure are disputed. In the 1990s, several governments evaluated the effects of dental amalgam and concluded that the most likely health effects would be due to hypersensitivity or allergy. Germany, Austria, and Canada recommended against placing amalgam in certain individuals such as pregnant women, children, those with renal dysfunction, and those with an allergy to metals. In 2004, the Life Sciences Research Office analyzed studies related to dental amalgam published after 1996. Concluding that mean urinary mercury concentration (μg of Hg/L in urine, HgU) was the most reliable estimate of mercury exposure, it found those with dental amalgam were unlikely to reach the levels where adverse effects are seen from occupational exposure (35 μg HgU). 95% of study participants had μg HgU below 4-5. Chewing gum, particularly for nicotine, along with more amalgam, seemed to pose the greatest risk of increasing exposure; one gum-chewer had 24.8 μg HgU. However, from reviewing medical literature, the World Health Organization states mercury levels in biomarkers such as urine, blood, or hair do not represent levels in critical organs and tissues. Additionally, Gattineni et al. found that mercury levels do not correlate with the number or severity of symptoms. It concluded that there was not enough evidence to support or refute many of the other claims such as increased risk of autoimmune disorders, but stated that the broad and nonspecific illness attributed to dental amalgam is not supported by the data.[36] Mutter in Germany, however, concludes that "removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials."[37]
Some of the major health effects of Methyl Mercury are neurological - including impaired congnitive development and function, particularly for babies and young children who are exposed to mercury in the womb or in early development. In addition to the neurological problems it can cause, symptoms of methylmercury poisoning may include; impairment of the peripheral vision; disturbances in sensations ("pins and needles" feelings, usually in the hands, feet, and around the mouth); lack of coordination of movements; impairment of speech, hearing, walking; and muscle weakness. People concerned about their exposure to methylmercury should consult their physician.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgam_%28dentistry%29
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm#meth
---------------------
White Composite Fillings (Synthetic Plastic Resin)
Just as amalgam fillings release mercury, so composite resin restorations have been shown to leach between 14 and 22 separate potentially hazardous compounds, including DL-camphorquinone; 4-dimethylaminobenzoic acid ethy ester, drometrizole; 1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2,2,1]heptane; 2,2-dimethoxy[1,2] diphenyletanone; ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate [3].
In a study of 35 identifiable dental resin composite monomers/additives of commercial composite resin composites (Table 1), investigators found nine severely or moderately cytotoxic components [4]. Other studies have also shown composite resin components to be cytotoxic (causing damage or destruction of cells). [5-15] Several studies have shown that dentin bonding agents and their components are mutagenic (cause mutations in new generations). [16-19] Wataha et al stated, "the components of resin composites are hazardous in that they all cause significant toxicity in direct contact with fibroblasts." [20]
Table 1. Components of Resin Composites Abbreviation Compound BEA
BEMA
BHT
Bis-EMA
Bis-GMA Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl methacrylate
2,6-Di-t-butyl-4-methyl phenol
Ethoxylated bisphenol-A-di-methacrylate
Bowen monomer, isopropyliden-bis (2-hydroxy-3-(4-phenoxy)-propylmethacrylate Bis-MA
BL
BME
BPE
CA
CQ
DBPA
DCHA
DCHP
DDMA
DEAE
DEGDMA
DHEPT
DICH
DIPA
DMABEE
DMAPE
DMBZ
DMDDA
DMPT
DMTDA
EGDMA
HEMA
HMBP
TEG
TEGDMA
THA
TPP
TPSb
UDMA Bisphenol-A-dimethacrylate
Benzil
Benzoic-acid-methylester
Benzoic-acid-phenylester
Camphoric acid anhydride
Camphoroquinone
Dibenzoyl-peroxide
Dicyclo-hexylamine
Dicyclo-hexyl-phthalate
1,10-Decane-diol-dimethacrylate
Diethyl-amino-ethanol
Diethyleneglycol-di-methacrylate
Dihydroxy-ethyl-p-toluidine
1,6-Diisocyanato-hexane
2,6-Diisopropyl-aniline
4-Dimethylaminobenzoic acid ethyl ester
2-(4-Dimethyl-aminophenyl)ethanol
Dimethoxybenzoine
Dimethyl-dodecane-amine
Dimethyl-p-toluidine
N,N-Dimethyltetradecylamine
Ethyleneglycol-di-methacrylate
2-Hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate
2-Hydroxy-4methoxy-benzophenone
Triethylenglycol
Triethylenglycol-di-methacrylate
Trihexylamine
Triphenylphosphine
Triphenylstibane
Urethane-di-methacrylate Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Liss, Inc., a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Adapted from Geurtsen W et al [4]
Resin composite components have been shown to cause immunosupression or immunostimulation [21] and to inhibit DNA [22] and RNA synthesis [23]. Resin composite restorative material was shown to be more cytotoxic than amalgam in a comparative in vitro study [24]. Various resin components of dentin bonding agents have been shown to suppress the mitochondrial acitivty of macrophages [25]. Various composite restorative materials implanted into animals have been shown to cause inflammatory responses, including an increase in lymphocytic infiltration as well as fibroblasts and epithelioid cells [26].
There have been several reports of allergy to composite resins and their ingredients [27-31]. It has been suggested that composite resins may be a cause of hand eczema and skin symptoms in dentists [32]. Vinyl, latex, and modified latex gloves are permeable to several resin composite materials [33]. Some resin monomers have been shown to encourage the growth of cariogenic microorganisms [34].
Resin composites [35], sealants [36], and glass ionomers [37] have been shown to release formaldehyde, a possible carcinogen [38]. One dentist, commenting on the fact that some anti-amalgamists describe composite resins as "mercury-free fillings," has called amalgam restorations "formaldehyde-free restorations." [39] Chemically cured composite resins contain the initiator benzoyl peroxide [40], which has been shown to be carcinogenic in many studies [41-43]. There is even concern that there may be environmental harm from the waste in dental offices using composite resin filling materials [44].
Glass ionomer cements have been shown to inhibit macromolecular synthesis [23]. In a review of the side-effects of dental ceramics, Mackert reported that ceramic dental restorations may cause silica granulomas and often contain radioactive fluorescing agents, both of which may cause systemic effects [45]. Even gold can be allergenic [46]. One study showed that the gold itself in gold foil restorations, and not the condensation of the gold foil, caused hemorrhage, destruction of odontoblasts, and inflammation of the pulp [47].
Most reviews have concluded that composite restorative materials are safe [48-51], but there is far more knowledge about dental amalgam than there is about composite resin and glass ionomer filling materials [52]. After extensively reviewing the toxicity of non-amalgam filling materials, Schmalz concluded, "it is not possible to rank dental filling materials in respect to their biocompatibility, and it is evident that biocompatibility must be considered to the same extent for both amalgams and commonly used or recommended alternative fillings materials." [53]
Another concern about Synthetic plastic composites is the release of Bisphenol A which is currently being banned all around the world for use in children's products and many other plastic products due to its endocrine (hormone) disrupting nature as it mimics the effects of natural estrogen in the body.
Bisphenol A is a potent endocrine disrupting chemical in lab animals at very low doses that is suspected of causing reproductive damage and birth defects that may lead to prostate and breast cancer. Studies have found that BPA can have adverse health effects at levels thousands of times lower than what the EPA considers safe. According to the low dose hypothesis, small and repeated exposures to bisphenol A can have an amplified effect on the human body by mimicking human sex hormones, or promoting cell proliferation. Bisphenol A has been found to cause estrogenic changes in animal cells at the same concentrations that are found in pregnant women and their fetuses.
Controversy over toxicity exists between public health advocates and the plastics industry, which describes bisphenol A as a weak estrogen, and says there is little concern with human exposure levels. Between 1998 and 2005, 115 studies of BPA were published. None of the 11 studies funded by industry reported adverse effects at low level exposures, whereas 94 of 104 government-funded studies found statistically significant effects on animals. Adverse effects were found at levels to which many people in the U.S. are currently exposed, levels much lower than the EPA's current acceptable level.
http://www.dentalwatch.org/hg/myths210.html
http://www.cleanandhealthyme.org/BodyofEvidenceReport/TheChemicals/BisphenolAHormoneDisrupter/tabid/99/Default.aspx
--------------------
Porcelein:
The main concern with Porcelain is the inclusion of radioactive metals which can have a negative effect on the immune system of the person, as well as concern over kidney toxicity and increased risk for cancer later in life.
The use of radioactive compounds in dental ceramics is one of long standing. In these materials radioactive ingredients are used for pure cosmetic reasons alone. Human dentine is weakly fluorescent and in an attempt to mimic this characteristic uranium has been added to both artificial teeth and ceramic powders for the manufacturing of crowns and bridges. Moore and MacCulloch reveal that this was done as early as 1925 (2).
According to the American Dental Association the use began before 1935 (3). In a patent by Lee and Müller in 1959 the inventors describes a mixture of cerium and uranium giving an improved shade of white (4). In recent years the question of radioactive ceramics has been addressed by Anusavice KJ (5): The degradation of dental ceramics generally occurs because of mechanical forces or chemical attack. The possible physiological side-effects of ceramics are their tendency to abrade opposing dental structures, resulting in the possible emission of radiation from radioactive components.
The only radioactive compound regulated for use in dental material is to my knowledge uranium when used in dental porcelain and porcelain teeth in the USA. This standard is explicitly limited to defining maximum uranium content in prefabricated artificial teeth made from fused porcelain and porcelain powders for making custom crowns and bridges. The uranium content is rather low and must not exceed 0.03% (3).
In recent years it seems as though depleted uranium, a waste product from the manufacturing of nuclear weapons and fuel has been favored. Natural uranium has however also been used.
Polymers used in dental composites are X-ray translucent. In composites X-ray opacity has been achieved by adding various heavy metal fillers, some being toxic, others being radioactive. Proposed fillers include uranium, thorium, lead, mercury, barium, bismuth etc. Fillers are also added to achieve wear-resistance, reduced shrinkage etc. The total amount of all sorts of fillers can be as high as 87% - the rest being polymer (1).
References for this above article can be found in the following article:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1093552
I recently became interested in the subject when I found out I had to get 3 fillings for the first time in my life, as the result I think of my decline in health since having 3 children so close together and having to deal with the health effects of extreme fatigue, hormone changes and a lowered immune system as a result. Having to research which option I would choose for myself lead me to want to share this information with others as it was quite the process to find all the information about the various products that are available.
Here is a review of the various procedures and what they are composed of:
Amalgam: Mercury, Silver, Tin, Copper and Zinc *Mercury is the main poison ;-) Amalgams tend to be rather hard wearing and relatively cheap filling material, making it widely used and available throughout the world.
Plastic Composite Fillings: Synthetic Plastic Resins which include a long list of various chemicals known to have very toxic, allergenic and cytotoxic potential, some of the highest concern is over Bisphenol A, a hormone mimicker. It is usually more expensive than Amalgam fillings, and has some inherant problems such as shrinkage, not sealing the hole properly resulting in continued degradation over time of the cavity etc. In Europe now in most places, Amalgam's are not even being used, so your options are usually limited to Plastic composites (Said to last between 5-8 years) or Porcelein, unless you ask specifically for Gold fillings.
Porcelein: Main concern is the radioactive metals added to the porcelain mixture in order to make it flourescant like real teeth as well as penetrable with xrays. Much more expensive than either Amalgams or Plastic Composites. They are usually used as veneers on the frontal teeth, as crowns and for artificial teeth, although because Porcelain is very fragile and solid, it can cause wear on the opposing teeth as well as being very susceptible to cracking. A typical dental feldspathic glass contains approximately the following proportion of constituents. (The porcelain contains refractory crystalline elements as well.) Composed of: Silica 60-65% Aluminum oxide 15-20% Boric oxide 5-10% Potash (K2O) 5-10% Soda (Na2O) 2-7% Other Oxides ** This is where the radioactive metals are incorporated, usually uranium, thorium.1-3% (oxides of iron impart a brown color, copper oxide produces a green color, small amounts of titanium oxide produce a yellowish brown color, cobalt oxide imparts a blue color, Manganese oxide produces a lavender color, Zirconium, uranium, cerium, titanium and tin oxides, when used as refractory crystals produce opacity
http://www.doctorspiller.com/ceramics_3.htm
GOLD as the final Option:
(And in my opinion for any work needing to be done that doesn't really get seen, it is the safest, most long lasting and durable as well as being the least toxic of all options)
Although Gold costs considerably more than Amalgams or Plastic Composites, considering the fact that it is likely to last most of your life, or longer, it is a very good investment as it likely will not need replacing (hence no replacement costs) and it shrinks and expands most like your other teeth, enabling it to adjust to your teeth without wearing down opposing teeth.
The average gold filling contains about 75% gold with the other main ingredients being palladium and silver. (There are a few other less common ingredients such as Platinum, Copper and Zinc.) These are far more preferable to the other metals included in porcelain and Plastic resins in order to cure the ingredients and add colour etc. Gold, Platinum, Copper and Zinc all have natural antibacterial properties, making it an even better choice for your dental work as they naturally prevent further bacterial infection in that area of the mouth and also likely in the whole mouth as saliva will be breaking down the metals in the mouth and creating a solution of ionic particles which helps to sterilize the whole mouth area.
As of course with any other information about toxins, the potential exposure and actual exposure can be quite different, so even if you do have any of these fillings in your mouth already, that doesn't mean you are definitely suffering effects from them, it depends on a number of factors - the rate of leaching, your body's overall health and well being, pH in your mouth, etc... so I hope no-one freaks out when reading this and thinks they need to get everything removed now and switch all to Gold!
I have had some clients who have come in with a mouth full of amalgam fillings that don't react at all to them, and don't exhibit any signs of toxicity from them at all, and others that are obviously sensitive to them, so it just depends on your body's tolerance levels, reactivity, sensitivity and overall health.
This just gives the information about what the possible effects are from each type. Ie. if you are already having hormonal problems or are estrogen dominant (ie. predisposition to breast cancer, uterine cancer or at risk for cancers), you might want to avoid plastic fillings which mimic estrogen hormone function, and if you are having immune problems, porcelain might be best avoided due to the suppressive effects of the radioactive metals, or if you are already very sensitive with your nervous system or impaired in your memory or mental function, it might be wise to avoid mercury amalgam fillings etc...
----------------
So here are some details about the research I found and some snippets of articles that I read on what is in each type of filling and why it is of concern:
----------------
Amalgam: (The typically referred to Silver fillings)
Amalgam is composed of 43% to 54% by weight of mercury and the remaining powder is made up of mainly silver (~20-35%)[2] and some tin, copper (~10%), and zinc (~2%).
Amalgam has been typically chosen in the past because it is predominantly cheap, easy to manipulate, place and is relatively long lasting. However, the main concerns with Amalgam fillings is the way in which the Mercury leaches out of the filling into the saliva and therefore into the body. Methyl Mercury vapour which is released from the mercury in the filling under certain conditions is also a major concern, as this is often more toxic to the body than the mercury metal itself.
Scientists agree that mercury amalgam fillings expose the bearers to a daily dose of mercury, but the level and effects of the chronic exposure are disputed. In the 1990s, several governments evaluated the effects of dental amalgam and concluded that the most likely health effects would be due to hypersensitivity or allergy. Germany, Austria, and Canada recommended against placing amalgam in certain individuals such as pregnant women, children, those with renal dysfunction, and those with an allergy to metals. In 2004, the Life Sciences Research Office analyzed studies related to dental amalgam published after 1996. Concluding that mean urinary mercury concentration (μg of Hg/L in urine, HgU) was the most reliable estimate of mercury exposure, it found those with dental amalgam were unlikely to reach the levels where adverse effects are seen from occupational exposure (35 μg HgU). 95% of study participants had μg HgU below 4-5. Chewing gum, particularly for nicotine, along with more amalgam, seemed to pose the greatest risk of increasing exposure; one gum-chewer had 24.8 μg HgU. However, from reviewing medical literature, the World Health Organization states mercury levels in biomarkers such as urine, blood, or hair do not represent levels in critical organs and tissues. Additionally, Gattineni et al. found that mercury levels do not correlate with the number or severity of symptoms. It concluded that there was not enough evidence to support or refute many of the other claims such as increased risk of autoimmune disorders, but stated that the broad and nonspecific illness attributed to dental amalgam is not supported by the data.[36] Mutter in Germany, however, concludes that "removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials."[37]
Some of the major health effects of Methyl Mercury are neurological - including impaired congnitive development and function, particularly for babies and young children who are exposed to mercury in the womb or in early development. In addition to the neurological problems it can cause, symptoms of methylmercury poisoning may include; impairment of the peripheral vision; disturbances in sensations ("pins and needles" feelings, usually in the hands, feet, and around the mouth); lack of coordination of movements; impairment of speech, hearing, walking; and muscle weakness. People concerned about their exposure to methylmercury should consult their physician.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgam_%28dentistry%29
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm#meth
---------------------
White Composite Fillings (Synthetic Plastic Resin)
Just as amalgam fillings release mercury, so composite resin restorations have been shown to leach between 14 and 22 separate potentially hazardous compounds, including DL-camphorquinone; 4-dimethylaminobenzoic acid ethy ester, drometrizole; 1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2,2,1]heptane; 2,2-dimethoxy[1,2] diphenyletanone; ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate [3].
In a study of 35 identifiable dental resin composite monomers/additives of commercial composite resin composites (Table 1), investigators found nine severely or moderately cytotoxic components [4]. Other studies have also shown composite resin components to be cytotoxic (causing damage or destruction of cells). [5-15] Several studies have shown that dentin bonding agents and their components are mutagenic (cause mutations in new generations). [16-19] Wataha et al stated, "the components of resin composites are hazardous in that they all cause significant toxicity in direct contact with fibroblasts." [20]
Table 1. Components of Resin Composites Abbreviation Compound BEA
BEMA
BHT
Bis-EMA
Bis-GMA Benzyl alcohol
Benzyl methacrylate
2,6-Di-t-butyl-4-methyl phenol
Ethoxylated bisphenol-A-di-methacrylate
Bowen monomer, isopropyliden-bis (2-hydroxy-3-(4-phenoxy)-propylmethacrylate Bis-MA
BL
BME
BPE
CA
CQ
DBPA
DCHA
DCHP
DDMA
DEAE
DEGDMA
DHEPT
DICH
DIPA
DMABEE
DMAPE
DMBZ
DMDDA
DMPT
DMTDA
EGDMA
HEMA
HMBP
TEG
TEGDMA
THA
TPP
TPSb
UDMA Bisphenol-A-dimethacrylate
Benzil
Benzoic-acid-methylester
Benzoic-acid-phenylester
Camphoric acid anhydride
Camphoroquinone
Dibenzoyl-peroxide
Dicyclo-hexylamine
Dicyclo-hexyl-phthalate
1,10-Decane-diol-dimethacrylate
Diethyl-amino-ethanol
Diethyleneglycol-di-methacrylate
Dihydroxy-ethyl-p-toluidine
1,6-Diisocyanato-hexane
2,6-Diisopropyl-aniline
4-Dimethylaminobenzoic acid ethyl ester
2-(4-Dimethyl-aminophenyl)ethanol
Dimethoxybenzoine
Dimethyl-dodecane-amine
Dimethyl-p-toluidine
N,N-Dimethyltetradecylamine
Ethyleneglycol-di-methacrylate
2-Hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate
2-Hydroxy-4methoxy-benzophenone
Triethylenglycol
Triethylenglycol-di-methacrylate
Trihexylamine
Triphenylphosphine
Triphenylstibane
Urethane-di-methacrylate Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Liss, Inc., a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Adapted from Geurtsen W et al [4]
Resin composite components have been shown to cause immunosupression or immunostimulation [21] and to inhibit DNA [22] and RNA synthesis [23]. Resin composite restorative material was shown to be more cytotoxic than amalgam in a comparative in vitro study [24]. Various resin components of dentin bonding agents have been shown to suppress the mitochondrial acitivty of macrophages [25]. Various composite restorative materials implanted into animals have been shown to cause inflammatory responses, including an increase in lymphocytic infiltration as well as fibroblasts and epithelioid cells [26].
There have been several reports of allergy to composite resins and their ingredients [27-31]. It has been suggested that composite resins may be a cause of hand eczema and skin symptoms in dentists [32]. Vinyl, latex, and modified latex gloves are permeable to several resin composite materials [33]. Some resin monomers have been shown to encourage the growth of cariogenic microorganisms [34].
Resin composites [35], sealants [36], and glass ionomers [37] have been shown to release formaldehyde, a possible carcinogen [38]. One dentist, commenting on the fact that some anti-amalgamists describe composite resins as "mercury-free fillings," has called amalgam restorations "formaldehyde-free restorations." [39] Chemically cured composite resins contain the initiator benzoyl peroxide [40], which has been shown to be carcinogenic in many studies [41-43]. There is even concern that there may be environmental harm from the waste in dental offices using composite resin filling materials [44].
Glass ionomer cements have been shown to inhibit macromolecular synthesis [23]. In a review of the side-effects of dental ceramics, Mackert reported that ceramic dental restorations may cause silica granulomas and often contain radioactive fluorescing agents, both of which may cause systemic effects [45]. Even gold can be allergenic [46]. One study showed that the gold itself in gold foil restorations, and not the condensation of the gold foil, caused hemorrhage, destruction of odontoblasts, and inflammation of the pulp [47].
Most reviews have concluded that composite restorative materials are safe [48-51], but there is far more knowledge about dental amalgam than there is about composite resin and glass ionomer filling materials [52]. After extensively reviewing the toxicity of non-amalgam filling materials, Schmalz concluded, "it is not possible to rank dental filling materials in respect to their biocompatibility, and it is evident that biocompatibility must be considered to the same extent for both amalgams and commonly used or recommended alternative fillings materials." [53]
Another concern about Synthetic plastic composites is the release of Bisphenol A which is currently being banned all around the world for use in children's products and many other plastic products due to its endocrine (hormone) disrupting nature as it mimics the effects of natural estrogen in the body.
Bisphenol A is a potent endocrine disrupting chemical in lab animals at very low doses that is suspected of causing reproductive damage and birth defects that may lead to prostate and breast cancer. Studies have found that BPA can have adverse health effects at levels thousands of times lower than what the EPA considers safe. According to the low dose hypothesis, small and repeated exposures to bisphenol A can have an amplified effect on the human body by mimicking human sex hormones, or promoting cell proliferation. Bisphenol A has been found to cause estrogenic changes in animal cells at the same concentrations that are found in pregnant women and their fetuses.
Controversy over toxicity exists between public health advocates and the plastics industry, which describes bisphenol A as a weak estrogen, and says there is little concern with human exposure levels. Between 1998 and 2005, 115 studies of BPA were published. None of the 11 studies funded by industry reported adverse effects at low level exposures, whereas 94 of 104 government-funded studies found statistically significant effects on animals. Adverse effects were found at levels to which many people in the U.S. are currently exposed, levels much lower than the EPA's current acceptable level.
http://www.dentalwatch.org/hg/myths210.html
http://www.cleanandhealthyme.org/BodyofEvidenceReport/TheChemicals/BisphenolAHormoneDisrupter/tabid/99/Default.aspx
--------------------
Porcelein:
The main concern with Porcelain is the inclusion of radioactive metals which can have a negative effect on the immune system of the person, as well as concern over kidney toxicity and increased risk for cancer later in life.
The use of radioactive compounds in dental ceramics is one of long standing. In these materials radioactive ingredients are used for pure cosmetic reasons alone. Human dentine is weakly fluorescent and in an attempt to mimic this characteristic uranium has been added to both artificial teeth and ceramic powders for the manufacturing of crowns and bridges. Moore and MacCulloch reveal that this was done as early as 1925 (2).
According to the American Dental Association the use began before 1935 (3). In a patent by Lee and Müller in 1959 the inventors describes a mixture of cerium and uranium giving an improved shade of white (4). In recent years the question of radioactive ceramics has been addressed by Anusavice KJ (5): The degradation of dental ceramics generally occurs because of mechanical forces or chemical attack. The possible physiological side-effects of ceramics are their tendency to abrade opposing dental structures, resulting in the possible emission of radiation from radioactive components.
The only radioactive compound regulated for use in dental material is to my knowledge uranium when used in dental porcelain and porcelain teeth in the USA. This standard is explicitly limited to defining maximum uranium content in prefabricated artificial teeth made from fused porcelain and porcelain powders for making custom crowns and bridges. The uranium content is rather low and must not exceed 0.03% (3).
In recent years it seems as though depleted uranium, a waste product from the manufacturing of nuclear weapons and fuel has been favored. Natural uranium has however also been used.
Polymers used in dental composites are X-ray translucent. In composites X-ray opacity has been achieved by adding various heavy metal fillers, some being toxic, others being radioactive. Proposed fillers include uranium, thorium, lead, mercury, barium, bismuth etc. Fillers are also added to achieve wear-resistance, reduced shrinkage etc. The total amount of all sorts of fillers can be as high as 87% - the rest being polymer (1).
References for this above article can be found in the following article:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1093552
RSS Feed