Getting Dental Work Done

Sarita and I went to a specialized dentist, Dr. C, last week. We went primarily in order to have our “silver” (i.e., 50%+ mercury) amalgam fillings taken out in a safe manner. And, related to the matter of having the "silver" out, we went to Dr. C because she is well aware of the dangers and takes appropriate precautions. (So, for example, besides placing special dams and cloth coverings for our basic protection from solid amalgam chips and dust that might [or absolutely will] fly from a drill site, Dr. C also hooked us up to oxygen and, I am told, hooks herself up to oxygen and runs some kind of special vacuum system (attached to her drills?; I was asleep, so didn't ask too many questions!) to suck up as much mercury vapor as possible as she is working with the stuff she removes from her patients’ mouths. . . .

But why would we want the "silver" out of our mouths?

Primarily because we want our bodies--and particularly mine, with its autoimmune problems--to have every advantage possible in fighting disease on their own.

But, says the ADA (American Dental Association), mercury amalgams have "been proven safe, affordable and durable" for over 180 years.

I beg to differ. And here are my reasons why. First, a story from while we were with Dr. C:

As we were eating lunch together with our dentist and her staff on Monday, we also sat with another dentist, Dr. B, a 20-year professional acquaintance of the doctor for whose services we had come. Just two weeks before, Dr. B had decided he wanted to join Dr. C in her practice. Dr. B has none of the background in nor long-term concern about the toxicological issues related to dentistry that Dr. C has.

One of the subjects that came up during our discussion: Why is dentistry one of the most suicide-professions in the world? (Actually, I have been told, and Dr. C assured us it is true, that dentistry is the most suicide-prone profession. But whether it is absolutely #1 or not, one must still wonder.) Why wouldn't we see more psychiatrists, for example, or emergency room doctors--professionals dealing with far more extreme and upsetting and high-pressure circumstances: Why wouldn't we see them committing suicide more often than dentists?

Dr. C’s suggested answer: Because of mercury.

She said, “I have never been in the presence of so many depressed people as when I have gone to ADA meetings.”

She also commented on the frequency with which she has dealt with dentists who are showing Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms: major shakes/tremors . . . and they aren't “even” that old.

Why is that?

She suggested all of these results are related to the dentists’ continual exposure to mercury.

Of course, I have merely told you an anecdote about anecdotal/circumstantial evidence. For more scientifically-based reasons for concern and descriptions of specific risks of mercury related to dental amalgams, see this paper (PDF) by the IAOMT (International Association of Oral Medicine and Toxicology), a dental industry group committed to seeing the repudiation of mercury amalgams in dentistry.)

Since our previous dentists really haven't cared one way or another about mercury, besides having our obvious amalgam fillings removed, we also went to have our crowns checked: did the previous dentists, by any chance, actually leave mercury amalgam under the crowns? (As it turned out, one of Sarita’s crowns was actually placed on top of an amalgam filling . . . and there was significant decay surrounding and under the filling under the crown . . . all of which decay and filling was completely undetectable to any x-ray because the porcelain crown was on a metal substrate!)

For me, we also went to have a root-canaled (and amalgam-filled-through-a-gold-crowned) tooth removed ("extracted"). I was (and am) planning to have an implant put in the now-missing tooth’s place.

Why have a root-canaled tooth removed? Quick answer: because, as Robert Kulacz, DDS, and Thomas E Levy, MD, JD, note in The Roots of Disease: Connecting Dentistry & Medicine: there are millions of dentin tubules inside every tooth (three miles of such tubules inside the smallest tooth), into which toxins from the nerve-canal space can go and hide. This has been shown by the electron-microscope. One of the common effects of root canals is to cut these tubules off from the cleansing action of the tooth nerve and tooth lymph systems. As a result, the tubules become little fermentation chambers that expel toxic material into the body through microscopic channels in the tooth or between the inner layer of the tooth and the inner gutta percha root canal material . . . which can then cause enormous problems in other parts of the body. Indeed, they suggest, this kind of infectious/toxic material is at the root of many cardiac problems and, even, deaths.

Of course, infections and toxic material seepage is not an absolute foregone conclusion as a result of root canals. But it is exceptionally common.

By the way: In case you are possibly facing a root canal, or are being urged to get a root canal, there are alternatives. See, for example, this page. Or look up root canal alternative on Google.

Virtually no “regular” dentists--and, certainly, no endodontists (who specialize in root canals)--will mention the idea that you could possibly heal your tooth. But, I am told, it is possible.

If you can't heal the tooth, some dentists--like Drs. Kulacz and Levy, or Dr. John Augspurger (whose brief article about healing a tooth I just referenced)--will urge you “simply” to get the tooth removed, as I had done. Better an extraction than all the complications and problems associated with infected, toxin-producing root-canaled teeth.

HOWEVER,

I urge you to look at Dr. Michael C. Goldman’s bracing article about Root Canal Treatment Choices. Interestingly, though definitely very aware of and concerned about the issues Kulacz, Levy and Augspurger (among many others) raise, Goldman suggests specific means by which dentists can do effective root canals. And he suggests reasons why one might want to go ahead with a root canal and how to avoid the (potential) problems the others talk about. I think this article has some very valuable things to say and includes comments about possible treatment modes you may want to discuss with your dentist or endodontist! Are they really proposing the best treatment protocols?

Prior to going to her office--actually, quite a while ago, September 19th, to be exact--Dr. C had Sarita and me have blood samples taken and sent to Clifford Consulting & Research of Colorado Springs. Clifford, then, did some assays on our blood by which they were able to test our bodies’ reactivity to well over 12,000 brand-name dental products and supplies—from cements, adhesives and bonding materials, to liners, sealants, etchant materials, pastes, varnishes, desensitizing agents, varnishes, porcelains, ceramics. . . .

You'd think, “What’s the big deal?” Well . . .

• Though we didn't know what they were made of, specifically, once they were removed, all of my crowns--both the “gold” crowns (I put the word in quotes because gold is only one of the materials in a gold crown, of course; gold is too soft to create a tooth replacement that has to withstand 200# or more of pressure) as well as the “porcelain” or “ceramic” crowns (lined with metal)--. . . all of my crowns were made of materials that were obviously (by visual inspection) highly reactive to my body. (How could we tell? The metal linings had turned black with some kind of--I'll call it--“growth.” You might compare it to oxidation (rust). But it looked more like a very thin, but completely black, film like the sludge that grows up on the inside of the downpipe of a bathroom sink--if you've ever cleaned out a plugged-up bathroom sink downpipe.)
  
  Sarita’s crowns and teeth were much the same.

Beyond that,

• The teeth themselves--both mine and Sarita’s--had begun to rot away beneath the crowns. . . .

In fact, as it turns out,

• According to Clifford, my body can hardly stand any of the standard dental metal materials. . . . (Dr. C gave both Sarita and me copies of our Clifford reports. Pretty amazing results.)
   
• As a result of the Clifford testing, we (Dr. C and we) knew what materials we could--and, more importantly, couldn't--use in the reconstruction process. I can tell you: there will be no ceramic- or porcelain-covered metal crowns in my mouth! Nor for Sarita.

Guess what? My root-canaled tooth was removed and there was massive infection in the underlying bone . . . all of which rotten bone Dr. C had to remove.

Oh. And since the roots of the tooth actually went up right next to or into my sinus, I now have a hole from my mouth, through the socket area, up into my sinus cavity.

Dr. C had planned for that (not only for a possible hole up into the sinus, but, "simply," for the hole that would be left by the extraction, by harvesting three growth factors from my own blood (she had a phlebotomist on her staff take my blood before doing the extraction, then spun the blood to separate the growth factors) and combining those growth factors with bone granules to aid healing in the extraction site.

. . . --Some of my experiences with the dental world in the last couple of weeks!

I have a couple of weeks of healing, yet, then Sarita and I return for permanent crowns to replace the crowns we had removed. I, then, am scheduled to return sometime in January to have an implant post placed into my jaw at the extraction site and, then, finally, three months from then, have the implant crown itself placed on the abutment.

I'll probably report on that in due time.

Mercury in the body . . .

My naturopath wanted to test me for mercury. Mercury contamination, he said, is a major cause of rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid problems ("I cannot state 100%, but I am quite sure . . . almost with 100% assurance: Every patient of mine who has suffered a thyroid problem, whether hypo- or hyper-, autoimmune or otherwise, I have found to have elevated levels of mercury in the body.") . . . indeed, many of the issues I have faced or am facing right now.

He said there are two ways of testing for mercury. One is called unprovoked; the other, provoked. The unprovoked test simply measures how much mercury is excreted in a person's urine over a 24-hour period; the other uses a chelating agent (my naturopath prefers an infusion of DMPS (sodium salt of 2,3-dimercapto-1-propane sulfonic acid)) to "provoke" the release of mercury and then a collection of urine.

"The problem with an unprovoked test is that mercury and other heavy metals have very strong affinities for different organs within the body. Once there, they don't let go. They do their damage, but you won't necessarily find them floating around in the body for excretion. You have to use agents to get them to release from the tissues where they are hiding." [Understand that I'm not quoting him exactly. But I am attempting to give the gist of what he said.]

Based on his input, I agreed to have the test. But I thought I would ask my conventional doctor at Kaiser whether he would authorize a test. Maybe I could save some money if I could get the test through my insurance provider!

To my mild astonishment, my Kaiser doctor agreed and set me up for that test in addition to a few others--one of which, also, is urine-based.

One minor complicating factor: the other urine-based test requires a different collection bottle. So I would have to collect urine for two days.

I figured that would be fine. I would get the microalbumin collection done one day, turn it in to the Kaiser lab, get the chelating agent injection after that from my naturopath, then do the urine collection for the mercury.

So I finished my microalbumin collection and turned it in, went to my naturopath, and then found him discouraging me from using Kaiser for the mercury test: "If you have any elevated levels of mercury within you, you will shock your doctor. He is used to unprovoked, unchelated numbers." And, moreover, "chelated urine collection should proceed for only 6 hours."

"That's fine," I said. "So I will simply not do the collection for Kaiser."

Four days later, however, I got my test results from Kaiser and the lab had analyzed the one collection for both microalbumin and mercury.

Mercury was at less than 4 mcg/L, well within the "standard range."

Well, by that point I had long since turned in my 6-hour collection of chelated urine.

I just got those results. Mercury: 29 mcg/g creatinine. Reference range (based on unchelated/unprovoked tests): less than 3 mcg/g creatinine--so about 10 times higher than "acceptable." Cadmium and Lead, too, were high (though just--and I mean "just"--outside the reference range. Antimony was at the top edge of the reference range. Everything else was either undetectible (11 metals) or well within the acceptable reference range (6 metals).

I just had hair, blood and another small urine sample sent to a different lab to determine whether the mercury in my system is methylated (from organic sources--most likely fish) or inorganic (amalgam tooth fillings? broken mercury thermometers? playing with the stuff when I was a kid? a broken fluorescent bulb?). The tests are also supposed to determine whether my kidneys are up to handling a heavy release of mercury if we go forward with chelation therapy.

Meanwhile, I realize I have some research to do. (Is that surprising?) What I have discovered in just the last few hours has put me in a mood to look for some alternative to the therapy--DMPS infusions (one per week for four weeks, then one every-other-week for six weeks)--my naturopath is suggesting.

Of minimal concern, frankly, is the fact that DMPS is not approved by the FDA. The FDA is not necessarily the world leader in pharmaceutical evaluation. DMPS, I am given to understand, is (and has been, for quite some time) used rather commonly in Germany.

More disturbing to me are other claims against DMPS chelation. For example:

• There are numerous reports concerning the toxicity of DMPS (despite Dr. John Cline's remarks about its safety being so great that it is freely available, without a prescription, in Germany). (One alarming collection of anecdotes may be found here.)
  
• There are far fewer such adverse reports for DMSA by mouth, I am told.
  
  And while we're talking about DMSA, we ought to note that . . .
  
• DMSA is FDA-approved. Whereas, as already noted, DMPS is not.
  
• DMSA (according to some sources) is more effective than DMPS for removal of mercury, lead, and arsenic.
  
• DMSA passes the blood-brain barrier and removes mercury; DMPS does not. (Methylmercury is especially attracted to and toxic to neurons, so having a chelating agent that can cross the blood-brain barrier is extremely important!)
  
• DMSA is much more convenient to use. ("The usual adult dose for mercury removal is 500 mg DMSA (five 100 milligram capsules) on an empty stomach on first arising in the morning with a glass of water or juice, and no food for another 30 minutes. This dose is taken 3 days per week with at least one day between each dose. Monday, Wednesday and Friday is a convenient schedule. This is continued for 3 months. Then wait another month without DMSA before retesting mercury levels" (John A Cranton, ARNP). My naturopath, meanwhile, has told me that DMPS chelation will take 10 injection/infusions over the course of a minimum of 16 weeks (four months).)
  
• DMSA is much less expensive. Between the cost of the DMPS and the doctor's office charges, I understand, DMPS is at least 10 times more expensive.
  
• And then, of course, there is the fundamental charge that provoked testing is simply a bunch of poppycock to begin with. (A charge countered by others that "[t]he quantity of heavy metal returned [by the provocation test] has generally correlated well to the symptom severity of the patients [they] have seen. Furthermore, the changes in metal excretion with this provocation test have corresponded well to the changes in symptom severity of the patients [they] have seen" (Mercury Toxicity and the Use of DMPS Chelation, John C. Cline, MD, Medical Director, Oceanside Medical Clinic)

But when all is said and done, I am struck with the claim by Elmer M. Cranton, MD, that "Scientific research shows that once a source of excessive mercury exposure is eliminated, half of the remaining mercury in the body is excreted naturally in less than 3 months, with no treatment whatsoever. Even methyl mercury is naturally eliminated from the brain. Mercury is eliminated normally in urine, feces, hair, skin, sweat, bile, etc. One year after excessive exposure has been eliminated, 95 percent or more of the excess mercury is gone from the body with no specific treatment."

I sense Jana's summary of what should--or should not--be done with DMPS is level-headed and appropriate. If you're considering DMPS therapy, I strongly encourage you to read her brief article.

Heavy metal contamination . . .

While talking with my naturopath on Tuesday, as I already mentioned, we got onto the subject of heavy metals.
I told him that, considering how much heavy metal Jonelle has in her body, I figured I was probably loaded with the stuff, too. I don't know where or how I would have been contaminated, but I can't ignore the possibility.

He replied, "It's highly unlikely you would've gotten heavy metals from the same place Jonelle did. Most people who are loaded with heavy metals got them from their mothers."

"Their mothers!?!"

"Yes."

"And where would the mothers have gotten their heavy metals?"

"The most common source: tooth fillings. The mercury in tooth fillings."

He suggested I look up a video on YouTube: Smoking Teeth.

I've done that. And I looked up a bunch more. Pretty enlightening . . . and scary at the same time!

Here's Smoking Teeth:



Don't believe the graphical presentation? Check out Visualization of Mercury vapors in UV light:



. . . and It Really Is MERCURY!:


And then--for a really eye-opening perspective on how amalgam fillings ought to be removed, check out Safer Amalgam Removal:



How does your dentist remove fillings?

Finally, in case you wonder: How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Damage from the University of Calgary:



. . . And after all that, perhaps you noticed--as I did--the warning that appears to be from an authoritative source . . . that one should never have amalgam fillings placed in the middle of gold crowns.

So what did the endodontist do the week after I had a gold crown put in this summer, and my tooth was killing me with pain? . . . Yep! Amalgam filling.

I think I have some more research to do.

--International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology -- http://iaomt.blogspot.com

PS: For a really disturbing look at severe mercury poisoning: Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....

Having seen the extreme, I begin to wonder about how less extreme poisoning might look: like Parkinson's? Multiple Sclerosis? Autism? Alzheimer's? . . .

The "two sides" to the argument, rather well-presented:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...