Don Sapatkin sat in the dental chair on May 1st for the placement of an amalgam filling. Don had previously had 10 amalgam fillings before this one; however it is understood that on his next visit for a filling Don and any other patients must sign a mandate information sheet about any filling procedure the dentist plans on doing. Don wrote the article Council Mandates Information sheet signings for dental fillings. The mandate information sheet consists of no dire warnings or even recommendations; although it does talk about the options of a white tooth resin or a gray-silver amalgam filling.
The mandate information also notes that amalgam fillings carry high levels of mercury; however also bulleted is that the mercury level in people that have amalgam fillings is so low which isn’t considered toxic. The Philadelphia County Society argued that the word mercury should me removed from the mandate form due to the scar it gives patients when reading the two words “mercury” and “toxic”. With that being said consumers from Dental Choice feel that amalgam should be banned because of the studies they’ve done which leaves the possibility of multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease.
The argument made about the amalgam mandate information form is, it should be worded differently with less stunning words like toxic and mercury. Instead Marla J. Gold suggested the wording should consist of “is there an alternative? And yes, there is”. The argument lies between anti amalgam campaigns affecting the reaction of people and how it’ll affect them with low incomes still going to the dentist because amalgam is a cheaper material to place. It may affect the youth and having their teeth tended to properly because of the money issue.
When reading the article you can see the define line between anti and pro amalgam campaigners. On the mandate information form it states that “high levels of mercury can cause toxic effects on the brain, nervous system and kidneys” however it is followed by “the mercury levels in people with amalgam fillings are not high enough to be considered toxic” (pg. 1). This makes the reader feel counter acted or confused to the mandate form. The first statement made about mercury and its potential causes isn’t needed if the mercury isn’t high enough to cause brain or kidney damage.
It was amusing that that the Philadelphia County Dental Society that intended nothing at all on the topic; however when the information sheet was released they became very agitated with the wording of the form (pg. 2). They felt that the wording crossed the line informing the patients of scarce words such as “toxic”, “mercury” and “brain damage”. Going through the article multiple times there never once was direct evidence stating cases where amalgam filling affected someone directly from the filling.
Only case mentioned was Kaya Koss who had her dental amalgam fillings removed and seven days after she was walking out of a concert and her vision doubled, and later was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (pg. 3). This was frustrating because the article talked more about small tests that weren’t proven absolutely correct and cases of evidence lacked. There are more possibilities mentions than concrete facts that have a clear correct or incorrect line. The article made the reader feel that people were on an up roar on this mandate form instead of actually listing facts instead of possibilities.
The article mention that amalgam fillings aren’t only used just used for preference but also at times when the patient can’t afford a composite resin filling (pg. 2). Working in the dental field as a dental assistance many of the patients that are getting amalgam fillings have an insurance that only excepts them or they’re paying out of the pocket, and can’t afford a composite resin. About 95% of our patients get composite resin fillings; however if they can’t afford them we have the option to place amalgam. The article says that more than 50% of fillings in the country are resin fillings.
Not only because of the controversy, because of the cosmetic point of view. The resin fillings match the exact shade of your tooth, which leads to a much better appearance than silver. The article stated that mercury is in amalgam but the consistency of mercury isn’t high enough to affect the patient. The mercury found in amalgam is elemental mercury which isn’t harmful to the nerve system; however in the article scientific consensus say that vapor does escape in the mouth and can be converted in rare conditions as an organic mercury which then is harmful (pg. 2).
I don’t understand why the mandate has to be in act, Europe has totally banned use of amalgam and if the US was going to do that there would have to be distinctive evidence proving that amalgam has horrible affects on people. The use of amalgam should or shouldn’t be allowed, there is no reason for a mandate information form due to lack of evidence. The way I view it was there may be a information sheet stating the pros and cons of placing the amalgam filling and then from there the patient decides what they want. It’s clear that amalgam fillings contain mercury and many people believe they have chronic damage.
The development of a mandate information form is in the process of improving the context and language used. The form shouldn’t scare the patient, more or less inform with proper facts and scenarios. As scientists and doctors evaluate cases and experiments they gather a great foundation on the affects of mercury. The argument will be exist that Kaya Koss’s diagnoses was caused by mercury but isn’t proven true or false. Dr. Johnson a psychologist at Temple University says “ I’ve had mercury fillings since I was 8” (pg. 3). He’s a doctor, which enables a great intelligent level. He never had to sign a mandate form before getting a filling.
