# Toxic dental materials



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

I've been having problems with adverse reactions to dental crowns and cements in the past 5 years. Now I find out that the lithium disilicate crowns I have are TOXIC. AND that this toxicity has been known for YEARS. In addition to this article I found one that said the same thing back in 2003.

*In vitro cytotoxic response to lithium disilicate dental ceramics.*

Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912-1100, USA.
*Abstract*

OBJECTIVES: The use of lithium disilicate dental ceramics is increasing in dentistry and previous reports have suggested that they may have greater biological risks than previously thought. We tested a hypothesis that composition and processing influence the biological properties of these ceramics.
METHODS: The cytotoxicity of two machined and three pressed lithium disilicate materials (n=6) were tested in vitro using mouse fibroblasts in direct contact with the materials for 72h. Cellular response was estimated by mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity (MTT method). Mitochondrial activity was expressed as a percentage of Teflon controls, then compared to Teflon using 2-sided t-tests (alpha=0.05). Polished materials were aged in artificial saliva and tested for cytotoxicity periodically over 6 weeks, then were repolished (320grit SiC paper), aged and tested again for 4 weeks.
RESULTS: All materials significantly (50-70%) suppressed cellular mitochondrial activity in the initial week, but suppression decreased by 25-30% over the next 2 weeks. In weeks 4 and 6 some materials exhibited a cytotoxic 'relapse' of 10-20%. The cytotoxic response was no different for machined or pressed materials, but the presence of ZnO had at least an association with longer-term cytotoxicity and relapse. Repolishing to 320grit did not increase cytotoxicity significantly.
SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggest that lithium disilicates are not biologically inert, and that many have a similar cytotoxicity dynamic regardless of small differences in composition or processing.

PMID: 17675143 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


----------



## CHD Streetherapist (Aug 19, 2011)

*Lithium Disilicate Ceramics*

I am interested in talking with anyone who has had adverse reactions to lithium disilicate dental ceramics. I recently had a lithium disilicate bridge placed in my lower right area of my mouth with severe adverse reactions which could have cost me my life.

As a result, I have become an activist to expose this product as being potentially harmful to some. 

My interests are purely honest and hope that this action prevent others from using a product that the industry touts as inert, biocompatible, and safe for all when it could be fatal. Please, I would like to hear from anyone who know of someone are is that someone who has had similar issues with lithium disilicate dental ceramics.


----------



## Duke of Prunes (Jul 20, 2009)

*inserts picture of quacking ducks here*


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

I found a piece of spinach that'd been stuck between my teeth for days once. I don't know if it was toxic but it sure did know how to hang on.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

It's not a joking matter. It's not just dental materials that have not been tested well enough. New artificial joints have been found to leak cobalt and chromium. They have made people severely ill.


----------



## complex (Apr 22, 2009)

I actually work in a dental office and I can tell you most people do not have a problem with most dental materials. Have you even heard what is in fillings it is amazing how much sh*t is in those! I hate replacing the silver *amalgam* fillings because of the "mercury dust and fumes" I have only read about I have never seen them. A mask can only do so much but it is my career and I do love it but what we put in our mouths may be not so great but there is not much else we could use that would do the same thing. Just like the mercury in silver fillings you need it so that it becomes soft enough to seat into the tooth. But I can say most people do not have problems with the things in crowns or fillings. The only thing I have had happen is allergic reactions to aesthetics which can be scary but is pretty rare also.


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

complex said:


> I actually work in a dental office and I can tell you most people do not have a problem with most dental materials. Have you even heard what is in fillings it is amazing how much sh*t is in those!* I hate replacing the silver *amalgam* fillings because of the "mercury dust and fumes" *I have only read about I have never seen them. A mask can only do so much but it is my career and I do love it but what we put in our mouths may be not so great but there is not much else we could use that would do the same thing. Just like the mercury in silver fillings you need it so that it becomes soft enough to seat into the tooth. But I can say most people do not have problems with the things in crowns or fillings. The only thing I have had happen is allergic reactions to aesthetics which can be scary but is pretty rare also.


Is mercury safe to use in fillings?


----------



## Duke of Prunes (Jul 20, 2009)

Amalgam phobia is sad.


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

Duke of Prunes said:


> Amalgam phobia is sad.


So then you feel it is safe to use? Is there any risk of mercury poisoning?


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

complex said:


> I actually work in a dental office and I can tell you most people do not have a problem with most dental materials. Have you even heard what is in fillings it is amazing how much sh*t is in those! I hate replacing the silver *amalgam* fillings because of the "mercury dust and fumes" I have only read about I have never seen them. A mask can only do so much but it is my career and I do love it but what we put in our mouths may be not so great but there is not much else we could use that would do the same thing. Just like the mercury in silver fillings you need it so that it becomes soft enough to seat into the tooth. But I can say most people do not have problems with the things in crowns or fillings. The only thing I have had happen is allergic reactions to aesthetics which can be scary but is pretty rare also.


Dental material sensitivity is rare - that's what makes it so hard on people like me who suffer from it. Most dentists totally dismiss it as a possibility. I am allergic to acrylic. I tell all dentists and doctors about that. And I still had a dentist who -without my knowledge or consent- gave me dental work with an acrylic cement. When I complained I was having an odd cottony sensation he told me it was a side effect of the anesthetic. A year later my whole mouth was burning and he still didn't tell me there was acrylic in the cement. When I asked if there was he admitted it but STILL denied it could be the problem. I went to other dentists and mostly got a run-around. One told me I was subconsciously rubbing my tongue against my teeth and that was causing the burning. Others told me it was a neurological problem.

Amalgam is still controversial. Some people do seem to have health problems from it. The ADA claimed as recently as 2004 that there had been less than 100 reported cases of allergic reactions to amalgam fillings. A meta-analysis of the literature on mercury toxicity and concluded that there is no documented scientific evidence to show adverse effects from mercury in amalgam restorations except in extremely rare cases of mercury hypersensitivity.

So most people are not sensitive to it - in the short term at least. I am not convinced that over a period of 50 years that exposure to mercury could not increase the risk of disease. Norway, Denmark and Sweden have banned amalgam.


----------



## ocha (Aug 31, 2011)

*dental materials- toxicity & sensitivity*

Hi,
I sympathise very much with what you have suffered. I have autoimmune disease with proven links to dental metals. I'm now about to have them removed, but pulled up when litihum disilicates (eMax) were being proposed, because of reports of toxicity. 
Does anyone know what other ceramics can be used for inlays though? And what cements have least toxicity? It seems nothing is safe. And what is the difference between 'all-ceramic' and zirconium or litihum d'.s?
Anyone with experience- negaitve or positive- please pass on your story!
Thanks!


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

I probably have more experience than anyone else on the planet. Most dentists and even labs don't know or care what crowns are made of. They say it doesn't matter because once it is fused into a solid mass it is insoluble and totally inert. I don't know if they really believe that or not, but it is obviously not true.

Another problem you will have is that most companies keep the content of their materials secret. They will not even tell a patient who is having an adverse reaction. The dental labs will not even talk to patients who are having adverse reactions so you cannot know what they did. Even a temperature difference when glazing or firing the ceramic can make a difference in the porocity and change the way it reacts with human tissue.

Do you have a problem with all metals? Gold allergies are very rare.
Gold fused to feldspathic porcelain is 60 year old technology. But if you have a problem with metals that would not be a good idea. The metals in high nobel crowns are :
Mostly Gold, Platinum, Palladium, and Silver with very small amounts of Iridium, Ruthenium, and Rhenium.​
For inlays you can get composite. I have had grandio and simile. I know they make ceramic inlays but I have no idea what the ceramic is. 

There are other options for crowns with no metal. You may be able to get composite crowns but they are not very strong and don't last so long. Belleglass and Artiste are a couple of composites I know of. Estenia is a mix between composite and porcelain. I don't know if it has lithium. BruxZir is supposed to be soild zirconium oxide. InCeram is made of aluminous porcelain, but I don't know if they veneer it with a lithium ceramic. ​
The oldest cement is zinc phospate. It has been around for 100 or more years and seems to have a good track record of biocompatability.​


----------



## ocha (Aug 31, 2011)

*dental materials- toxicity & sensitivity*

Hi Scarpia,
It turns out I am highly allergic to gold, & a 'gold' crown probably triggered my autoimmunity (although I have no reaction to gold jewellry.) Lymphocite and patch tests have shown that gold is a major problem for me. Dermatologists say it's actually not uncommon.
I also need to get rid of the amalgam as I think it too has damaged my immune system. I wanted ceramics as they are supposed to be much less toxic than resin composites, where you can't avoid BisGma, Tegdma, Udma, Hema etc- all shown to have cytotoxic & mutagenic effects. However, even ceramic inlays have to stuck in with resins so you still get some exposure, but less than composite fillings. My problem now is what ceramic to get, & as you said, finding out what they're made of, & how they're made. Zirconia has a good name (in the industry at least) but it's not usually used for inlays, only crowns... Any help is appreciated.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

You can't trust anything anyone in the industry says. The truth is that everyone's biochemistry is different. Something that is safe for other people doesn't mean it will be safe for you. The only way to be really certain about things is to have all the dental work taken out and then test different dental materials one by one. I would like to do that but the expense would be far too great. I have a lot of fillings and crowns unfortunately.

Temporary fillings could be made out of glass ionomer. Or maybe even zinc phosphate.

The best hope is synthetic enamel. It is chemically identical to real enamel so it will not cause any adverse reaction. It was invented several years ago but it will be many years before it gets used- if at all. I only know of one dentist in Japan who uses it - and it can only be used for small fillings. http://jada.ada.org/content/136/4/445.3.full

Here's an interview and a link to her site:http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/02/24/7953.aspx


----------



## Unkn0wn Pleasures (Nov 24, 2011)

Duke of Prunes said:


> Amalgam phobia is sad.


Most phobias are

Lol dental practices have to pay a company to dispose of the left over amalgam 'coz it can't go down the sink or in grabage.

But it doesn't seem to do any harm in people's mouths.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

*From J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;22(2):357-74.
Does inorganic mercury play a role in Alzheimer's disease? A systematic review and an integrated molecular mechanism.*



> *Abstract*
> 
> Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to humans. It has been introduced into the human environment and has also been widely used in medicine. Since circumstantial evidence exists that the pathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) might be in part caused or exacerbated by inorganic mercury, we conducted a systematic review using a comprehensive search strategy. Studies were screened according to a pre-defined protocol. Two reviewers extracted relevant data independent of each other. One thousand and forty one references were scrutinized, and 106 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most studies were case control or comparative cohort studies. Thirty-two studies, out of 40 testing memory in individuals exposed to inorganic mercury, found significant memory deficits. Some autopsy studies found increased mercury levels in brain tissues of AD patients. Measurements of mercury levels in blood, urine, hair, nails, and cerebrospinal fluid were inconsistent. In vitro models showed that inorganic mercury reproduces all pathological changes seen in AD, and in animal models inorganic mercury produced changes that are similar to those seen in AD. Its high affinity for selenium and selenoproteins suggests that inorganic mercury may promote neurodegenerative disorders via disruption of redox regulation. Inorganic mercury may play a role as a co-factor in the development of AD. It may also increase the pathological influence of other metals. Our mechanistic model describes potential causal pathways. As the single most effective public health primary preventive measure, industrial, and medical usage of mercury should be eliminated as soon as possible.


----------



## Christopherm (Aug 23, 2012)

*Zirconia crowns*

Scarpia

You certainly do seam to know what you are talking about. Can I ask you for your opinion on Zirconia crowns. I have had two fitted due to making a mistake in having the teeth crowned in the first instance when they should not have been but I knew little about it all then. Do you feel that these are 100% compatibly and whats you general overview?

Christopher


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

Cremation of bodies containing mercury fillings have contributed to most of the mercury in the atmosphere. Mercury is extremely toxic, and to think that they used to have kids in science classes handle mercury with their bare hands.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Christopherm said:


> Scarpia
> 
> You certainly do seam to know what you are talking about. Can I ask you for your opinion on Zirconia crowns. I have had two fitted due to making a mistake in having the teeth crowned in the first instance when they should not have been but I knew little about it all then. Do you feel that these are 100% compatibly and whats you general overview?
> 
> Christopher


That depends on what you mean by Zirconia crowns. Dental terminology is not very precise. I found out that when talking to dentists. One said he gave me zircon crowns but that idn't tell me much. It was really a zirconium oxide core - called a coping in dentel lingo - fused to a ceramic. It was that ceramic that was a problem for me, not the zirconium oxide core. The ceramic was a lithium disilicate called Noritake Cerabien. Even that was very difficult for me to find out because the lab would not talk to me until I wrote a letter to the CEO. And even knowing it was Noritake Cerabien didn't tell me it had lithium in it because Noritake doesn't give the MSDS on its website. I was able to get a MSDS from the lab that showed Noritake Cerabien had some lithium in it.

The other kind of zirconia crown you could have is the solid bruxzir crown. That is a crown made completely out of zirconuim oxide. At least that is what they indicate on dental lab websites. But it might not be true. They don't have to be honest about what they say they put in these devices and the FDA does nothing about it. I looked on the Glidwell lab site and see they give a MSDS on the bruxzir crown as this

*Section 2: Chemical Composition/Information on Ingredients *
*Typical Analysis - Chemical: Chemical Name *
*CAS Number *
*Proportion(%) *
Ceramic 
66402-68-4 
100 

But when I go to chemicalbook or sigma-aldrich and look up that CAS # I get that it is titanium oxide or Copper zinc ferrite, Zinc copper ferrite, Zinc copper iron oxide. Linear Formula: CuZnFe4O4. So I am not sure exactly what it is. And the company will NOT want to give out its trade secret. It is new - and basically you don't want anything too new because you have no idea how bad it is for you. They just ASUME that these things ar biologically inert. It is not true.

Product Name:TITANIUM OXIDE SSynonyms:Antimonyoxidecalciumtitanatesilicateceramicopacifier;Ceramicmaterialsandwares,chemicals;SUBSTANCE H5;TITANIUM OXIDE S;COPPER ZINC IRON OXIDE, NANOPOWDER, 98.&;CHINACLAYCALCINED;Mischoxid (Bi: 1,8/Ca: 2,02 - 2,1/Cu: 3,0 - 3,06/O: x/Pb: 0,34 - 0,4/Sr: 1,91 - 2,0);Mischoxid (Bi: 1,8/Ca:2,0/Cu: 3,0/O: x/Pb: 0,33/Sr: 1,87)CAS:*66402-68-4*MF:CuZnFe4O4
CAS No.*66402-68-4*Chemical Name:*TITANIUM OXIDE S*Synonyms:SUBSTANCE H5;TITANIUM OXIDE S;Imerys Glomax JDF;CHINACLAYCALCINED;ceramic materials, chemicals;Ceramicmaterialsandwares,chemicals;COPPER ZINC IRON OXIDE, NANOPOWDER, 98.&;Mischoxid (Bi: 2,0/Ca: 1,0/Cu: 2,0/O: x/Sr: 2,0);Antimonyoxidecalciumtitanatesilicateceramicopacifier;Mischoxid (Bi: 1,8/Ca:2,0/Cu: 3,0/O: x/Pb: 0,33/Sr: 1,87)CBNumber:CB5270675Molecular Formula:CuZnFe4O4


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Dr House said:


> Cremation of bodies containing mercury fillings have contributed to most of the mercury in the atmosphere. Mercury is extremely toxic, and to think that they used to have kids in science classes handle mercury with their bare hands.


Not sure where you get that. Mercury in the environment can come from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions. About two-thirds comes from human activities. The biggest single source is the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which releases 160 tons of mercury a year into the air in the United States alone. 
Dentists are moving away from using mercury containing amalgam fillings. They usually use composite now. However the composite contains BPA which is not good for you. Gold is the safest although there are people with gold allergies.


----------



## Duke of Prunes (Jul 20, 2009)

Amalgam will be around for a very long time because it's the only material that can be used for large fillings that are subject to high wear (gold can be used for small high-wear fillings, but it's expensive, and can't be used in patients that also have amalgam). The benefits outweigh the ridiculously minute danger of mercury poisoning (it's only really an issue if you grind your teeth into oblivion 24/7 and have a poorly fitted filling right in the line of fire).

BTW, composites are pretty safe as well, and there's no risk of a serious exposure to BPA once the filling has cured, as long as it's mixed properly. They're still inferior to amalgam for almost all types of fillings, though.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Duke of Prunes said:


> Amalgam will be around for a very long time because it's the only material that can be used for large fillings that are subject to high wear (gold can be used for small high-wear fillings, but it's expensive, and can't be used in patients that also have amalgam). The benefits outweigh the ridiculously minute danger of mercury poisoning (it's only really an issue if you grind your teeth into oblivion 24/7 and have a poorly fitted filling right in the line of fire).
> 
> BTW, composites are pretty safe as well, and there's no risk of a serious exposure to BPA once the filling has cured, as long as it's mixed properly. They're still inferior to amalgam for almost all types of fillings, though.


I have a very large occlusal filling on a molar made out of composite - it's really borderline needing a crown. But that composite filling has held up for over a decade. I really don't think there is any need for mercury fillings now. Composite isn't ideal but it is better than amalgam. Synthetic enamel has been invented and more money and research should be going into making that usable.


----------



## Duke of Prunes (Jul 20, 2009)

Composite fillings usually shrink, so unless they're very neat and compact, they will usually have weak points, which makes them vulnerable to cracking, potentially creating gaps that can't be cleaned, causing further decay around, and maybe even underneath it. That's one of the reasons why composites don't last nearly as long as amalgams. Gold is clearly the best material, but only when people get their teeth checked often enough to catch cavities before they become too big to be filled with it.


----------



## Unkn0wn Pleasures (Nov 24, 2011)

The left over amalgam material is taken from dental clinics for disposal, mercury is too toxic to go down the drain or in the bin. That kind of creeps me out about having amalgam fillings.

:sigh Who knows?


----------

