ES sufferers often have problems with mercury amalgam fillings. Debbie Taylor, writing in the ES-UK newsletter, highlights some of the problems with the alternatives to amalgam - holistic dentist Adam Sapera, comments.

Debbie Taylor:
There is much pressure these days to have mercury amlagam fillings removed. Whilst in theory that is an excellent course of action, in practice it can result in being unable to chew, loss of teeth and loss of health.

The white composite fillings (light-cured) that are most commonly used to replace amalgams are neurotoxic. They can kill the nerveofo the tooth (which does not show up on x-ray) and that results in a great deal of pain and then an extraction (or a root filling or an implant, both of which are most detrimenta lto general health).

Composites are plastic and release xeno-oestrogens. These xeno-oestrogens play havoc with the hormonal system and are implicated in period problems, infertility, prostate cancer and breast cancer to name just a few.

Probably glass ionomer fillings (non-light-cured) are at present the safest materials available for white fillings. Ketac (for back teeth) and Chem-fill (for front teeth) are the leat contaminated. (Yes, the dental industry is about as well controlled and regulated as the mobile phone industry.)

Ceramic inlays sound good but are on a metal base plate, and no metal in the mouth is the best policy. Nacre inlays can be as strong as titanium, if their structural integrity is kept; however, being unpatentable I have yet to persuade a dentist to use them. Nacre would be the best material in my view.

Local anaesthetics can have synthetic andrenalin in them, which is best avoided. So Scandonest or Citanest are the ones to ask for. They just work a little slower.

Dentists are not trained to discuss treatments. If you have a dentist willing and able to talk thoroughly over your treatment before hand, that is a very good start. It is important to know every material intended for use, preferably as a written list, because fillings can be a constant source of toxin release.

Adam Sapera writes:
Debbie makes some interesting points.
The galvanic reaction to metals in the mouth is well documented and mercury toxicity is also well established.

Composite resin is a plastic, therefore some toxicity is always a possibility but some types of composite are better than others. In any case, resins can be tested with AK or EVA for compatability.

Glass ionomers are great materials but they don't have good durability and are not suitable for stress areas. They also contain fluoride which may be an issue for some, even though they are good at resisting caries.

There is no metal in ceramic inlays, unless you consider the aluminium in the crystaline structure - in which case we should give up ceramic plates... Should we go back to tin?

Nacre, as a material, is not readily available.

Which ever way you look, it's all a compromise, each case needs individual attention and reactions vary widely. There are some spectacular case reports. Sadly there are no absolutely ideal materials available.

Click here for more articles on chemical sensitivity

First Published in 2009

Back to top