Cent4dent Blog

From IADR:

0755 Metabolic changes of cells caused by oral galvanism
W. NIEDERMEIER1, A. GROB1, N. WIRTZ1, H. SAUER2, M. WARTENBERG3, and J. HESCHELER1, 1University of Cologne, Germany, 2University of Giessen, Germany, 3University of Potsdam, Germany
Objective: Electrostatic potentials up to 800 mV can be observed between different dental alloys used for restorative or prosthetic treatment. Associated symptoms are impaired taste, glossodynia and acute or chronic alterations of the oral mucosa. Methods: To investigate physiologic reactions of oral mucosa cells caused by electrostatic corrosion potentials, cell lines (UMSCC-14-C, Heidelberg cell bank) were incubated in a newly developed non polarizing pseudo-realistic electric field ?? device and exposed to voltages of 0-400 mV for a period of 24 hours. Following this, the cells were treated with different antibodies and stained to prove metabolic changes: Keratin-14, Actin, Microtubuli, Ki-67, Dichlorofluorescein, NADPH-oxidase, Catalase, Superoxide-dismutase, Caspase-3, Poly-ADP-Ribose Polymerase. Findings were assessed utilizing laser-scanning microscopy, and data was evaluated statistically using the t-test. Results: Voltages of 200 mV led to cell apoptosis with significant destruction of the cytoskeleton and reduced cell proliferation. As trigger for the connected metabolic changes, a significant (p=0.0064) increase of the reactive oxygen intermediates (ROI) caused by activation of NADPH-oxidase could be observed. Also Superoxide-dismutase and Catalase were increased, but could not improve cellular defence mechanisms sufficiently. Conclusion: Electrostatic potentials of 200 mV stimulate reactive oxygen intermediates that inhibit cell proliferation and result in cell apoptosis. Since mechanisms of cellular defence are activated to an inadequate degree, cells cannot be protected against irreversible damage.

Seq #98 – Oral Biology and Pathology
2:00 PM-3:15 PM, Thursday, March 22, 2007 Ernest N. Morial Convention Center Exhibit Hall I2-J

bill domb

From Bill Osmunson:

Very well done Steve.

Did you see these two recent abstracts?

Looks like most dentists, the ADA is unaware that fluoride’s benefits, if any, are topical and not systemic. The ADA persists in claiming fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20-40%. Looks like the ADA flunks Public Health Dentistry 101.

J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):140-7.
Knowledge and use of fluoride among Indiana dental professionals.
Yoder KM, Maupome G, Ofner S, Swigonski NL.

Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, IN, USA. kmyoder@iupui.edu

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the knowledge of Indiana dentists and dental hygienists about fluoride’s predominant mode of action and their protocols for the use of fluoride for dental caries prevention. METHODS: In 2000, questionnaires were mailed to 6,681 Indiana dentists and hygienists prior to the 2001 release of recommendations for the use of fluoride by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2005, the questionnaires were again sent to Indiana dental professionals to assess changes in knowledge and protocols. In addition, a 10 percent sample of Illinois dentists and hygienists were surveyed to determine the similarity of Indiana and Illinois responses. RESULTS: Questionnaires were anonymously completed and returned. In 2000, a minority of Indiana health professionals (17 percent) correctly identified that remineralization was fluoride’s predominant mode of action. There was a significant increase in Indiana respondents correctly identifying this predominant mode of action between 2000 and 2005 (17 percent versus 25 percent, respectively, P < 0.0001). Fourteen percent of Illinois respondents answered correctly in 2005. Preeruptive incorporation of fluoride into enamel was the most frequently cited incorrect response (IN 2000, 79 percent; IN 2005, 71 percent; IL 2005, 82 percent). Some protocols for use of fluoride products reflected inadequate understanding of fluoride’s predominant posteruptive mode of action. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of dental professionals surveyed were unaware of the current understanding of fluoride’s predominant posteruptive mode of action through remineralization of incipient carious lesions. Additional research is indicated to assess fluoride knowledge and protocols of dental professionals nationwide. Educational efforts are needed to promote the appropriate use of fluoride.

PMID: 17899898 [PubMed - in process]

J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):151-8.
An investigation of bottled water use and caries in the mixed dentition.
Broffitt B, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Cavanaugh JE.

Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA. barbara-broffitt@uiowa.edu

OBJECTIVES: Bottled water consumption in the United States has greatly increased in the past decade. Because the majority of commercial bottled water is low in fluoride, there is the potential for an increase in dental caries. In these secondary data analyses, associations between bottled water use and dental caries were explored. METHODS: Subjects (n = 413) are in the Iowa Fluoride Study, which included dental examinations of the primary (approximately aged 5) and early erupting permanent (approximately aged 9) dentitions by trained dentist examiners. Permanent tooth caries and primary second molar increments were related to bottled water use using logistic and negative binomial regression models. All models were adjusted for age and the frequency of toothbrushing. RESULTS: Bottled water use in this cohort was fairly limited (approximately 10 percent). While bottled water users had significantly lower fluoride intakes, especially fluoride from water, there were no significant differences found in either permanent tooth caries (P = 0.20 and 0.91 for prevalence and D(2+)FS, respectively) or primary second molar caries (P = 0.94 and 0.74 for incidence and d(2+)fs increment, respectively). Results for smooth surfaces differed somewhat from those for pit and fissure surfaces, but neither showed significant differences related to bottled water use. CONCLUSION: While bottled water users had significantly lower fluoride intakes, this study found no conclusive evidence of an association with increased caries. Further study is warranted, preferably using studies designed specifically to address this research question.

Hello Dr. Markus,
I read your letter in the Phila Inquirer, Page B2, 10/04/2007 on Fluoridation.

A very interesting letter since I have worked for the Phila Water Dept for about 30 years,
however, I am an Administrative Supervisor, not a chemist or engineer, etc.

You state in your letter that
“There have been pockets of testicular cancer in adolescent males
in fluoridated areas.”

Can you cite any medical or scientific studies that have been published about this
or any other scientifically tested danger or risk of fluoride in the drinking water?

Thank you, in advance, for your response and your time.

Daniel L. Plasky
wjm 55, life-long philadelphian
skatingdan@aol.com

AND MY REPLY:
Check out www.fluoridealert.org, or google testicular & fluoride

A 1992 New Jersey Department of Health report: “Between the years 1970 and 1989, the rate of osteosarcoma (among 10-19 year old males) was found to be 3.5 to 6.3 times greater in the fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas.”

http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=540

Ghosh D, et al. (2002). Testicular toxicity in sodium fluoride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reproductive Toxicolology 16(4):385.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ. (1994). Effect of fluoride on rat testicular steroidogenesis. Fluoride 27: 7-12.

Sprando RL, et al. (1996). Effect of intratesticular injection of sodium fluoride on spermatogenesis. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34: 377-84.

Posted on Thu, Oct. 4, 2007

Letters | Brush up on facts before fluoridating water

Five years ago, I would have applauded the commentary calling for blanket fluoridation of all communities’ water supplies (“A simple step for dental health,” Sept. 26). Today, I have reason to take the opposing side. Recent evidence has shown that fluoridation of water supplies has done nothing to cut down on the rate of decay in the United States.
Fluoride acts by making enamel (hydroxyapatite) less soluble in acid (fluorhydroxyapatite). It acts topically. Ingesting fluoride from the water supply distributes it to all organs of the body. The teeth are the only ones that need fluoride. How much gets to the teeth? Not much. Only the fluoride that makes it back to the saliva. Putting fluoride in water to stop decay is like putting sunscreen in water to stop skin cancer.

There have been pockets of testicular cancer in adolescent males in fluoridated areas. There is no federal, or even state, regulation of fluoridation. I would suggest that any interested parties visit www.fluorideaction.net, and read The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson. Read the treatise of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (http://go.philly.com/Flouride).

Just as most dentists refuse to believe that the mercury in their dental fillings cause health problems, they been led to believe that fluoridated water is beneficial. I would like to see nothing less than a lower incidence of decay in children. After 32 years of practice, it simply hasn’t happened. Parents need to take control of their children’s diets and oral hygiene; schools need to remove soda and candy machines. Let’s not be so cavalier about putting an industrial-waste product into the water supply.

Steve Markus, D.M.D.
Haddon Heights
smarkus147545@comcast.net

Heed the warning

Re “A simple step for dental health,” Sept. 26:
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in the water, but that does not mean it’s not a poison to humans – especially children – at higher levels. We already have fluoride in 99 percent of the manufactured toothpaste we use daily. It’s hard to find toothpaste without the ingredient.

The main reason for the reduction of tooth decay in the last 50 years is increased brushing and flossing of teeth. We can thank the dental association for putting the word out about dental hygiene, but please, please, don’t put more poisons – even at “acceptable” levels – in our drinking water.

Fluoridated toothpaste is not recommended for children younger than 2 without a doctor’s approval. Read the back of tube. My name-brand toothpaste tube ominously says: “Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison control center right away.” That’s scary to even people without small children. I called poison control, and it affirmed that the warnings are there because of the fluoride. What can go wrong: heart and kidney problems, loss of calcium absorption.

I know the dental association is looking out for us, but legislating the addition of fluoride to our public water is not the way to go. Let the people decide, junk science and all. Let the Pennsylvania House know that you are against the forced addition of fluoride to water.

Edward Savaria Jr.
Erdenheim

From: Jay S
To: CROWNS@LISTS.CROWNCOUNCIL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [CROWNS] Mercury separators

Bruce,
I think you are right that these regulations started in New England and lucky for us Garden State dentists, it arrived here in New Jersey several months ago. The leaders of the New Jersey Dental Association put up a good fight but the law was passed despite the organized resistance. It will take about a year to get everything in order and then any dentist who removes amalgam restorations will have an additional year to comply. The non restorative dental specialists are all exempt from this ruling. The past president of the NJ Dental Association was from my county and a friend and he said that their statistics clearly showed that having the amalgam separators would not make any significant changes in pollution. Unfortunately the legislators see all dentists as having deep pockets and remember, when dentists are asked to jump, the response is usually “how high?”
Jay S DDS

MY REPLY:

When my building was opened, in 1997 I installed Hg separators because I felt that my profession was poisoning the environment, and I needed to do something about it. I also invested in the company, not to make money, but to help the cause.

Down in Virginia someone spilled a teaspoon of mercury into the sewer system. They were treated like terrorists. Someone dropped the same amount of mercury in a high school. The clean-up took months and a small fortune of money. I am proud that every year we recycle 4-5 POUNDS of mercury that otherwise would burden the environment. I am just a drop saved from the bucket, but times are changing and since the ADA, and the NJDA have failed to regulate us, legislation is necessary.

You know, the cavalier attitude about the handling of THE MOST TOXIC naturally occurring substance on the planet (plutonium is the only thing more toxic) disturbs me.

Why would anyone willfully do that? Why would anyone say that unless the ADA mandates it, or talk about how their State directorate was campaigning not to mandate it?

The ADA tells dentists that mercury, once alloyed in a triturator becomes inert. Yet out of the other side of their mouth, they tell their members that if they have any amalgam scrap left over, they need to put it in a glass jar, tightly sealed, and under a high specific gravity liquid.

Wouldn’t it make more sense just to get everyone to give a spit sample in the jar until the mercury fillings were covered over, because it’s so obvious, to me at least, that it has to be saliva that makes the difference right? Wouldn’t it seem to you that if unused mercury filling particles were placed in saliva, you wouldn’t even need the tightly sealed glass bottle?

Let me help spell that out a little better for the non-scientists in the group:
1. Mercury needs to be handled carefully.
2. Mercury once alloyed and placed in the mouth is safe.
3. Mercury once alloyed, if unused should be swallowed by the dentist or his assistants because it is unsafe to store, except in a tightly closed glass jar.

It has to be the saliva.

So, let’s take it a step further:
1. If you reverse the process, and pulverize these safe fillings back to amalgam dust using a high speed drill, it doesn’t matter where the particulate lands, it has been rendered inert by having been exposed to an American’s spit (NB – there are many nationalities that do not have this quality in their spit).

2. Mercury is volatile at room temperature (hence the high specific gravity liquid and the tightly closed jar), so those vapors are being continually emitted.

3. The particle speed of a gas is higher than a liquid, and it in turn is higher than a solid. So, as amalgams are heated more gas is given off.

4. The base of the brain is extremely close to the mouth.

5. The sublingual route of administration is quick. I take the dam off as soon as the mercury filling has been removed, and flush all oral tissues. We have been licensed to use the most toxic substance on the planet, our parent organization, the ADA really doesn’t mandate any special training in its use or disposal, but has broken down, of late, to tell us that we should be cleaning up our mess. I also use a vacuum unit that sucks the mercury vapor out of the room air.

6. Everyone’s heard of the Mad Hatter, but who knows what Mad Hatter’s Syndrome is? It’s neuron degeneration caused by Hg.

7. Has anyone had anything more than a one hour lecture on the toxicity of mercury in dental school? I know I didn’t (and was never tested on it either, so I know I didn’t cut Dental Materials that day to play golf).

8. So is it your gut that tells you that the removed shaved particles of mercury are totally safe jay? It can’t possibly be your brain.

9. Why is the suicide rate among dentists dropping? Could it be they’re handling less mercury — I don’t state this as fact, just food for thought.

10. What other industry is allowed to use toxic substances, unregulated?

11. How is mercury removed from effluent waters of dental offices by sewage treatment plants? What happens if there’s suddenly a rush of mercury, can their filters get it all? The answer is no! Where does it go? Into our rivers and streams; into sludge used as fertilizer for our plants, eaten by cows and other eaters of leafy greens.

12. They excrete some of it. It vaporizes into the atmosphere or is washed again into the soil. It rains, it’s washed down into the rivers and lakes, and into the soil. It closes lakes to fishing. It makes certain fish toxic to eat.

Steve Markus, D.M.D., F.A.C.E
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon

In response to: “High Mercury Levels Found in One-Fourth of Adults”

Mr. Kass should have his head examined. Since when did elevated mercury levels pose little or no health risks for adults? Pish! The World Health Organization states that not fish, but “dental fillings constitute the major source of mercury exposure in the general population” and “there is no known ’safe’ level of exposure.” It might surprise you to know that each of your so-called “silver” fillings is comprised of approximately 50% mercury – about the same amount as found in a mercury thermometer. This potent neuron-toxin continually leaches into your body from older fillings in the form of vapor. Stop eating fish if you like – but better to mind the poison that’s already in your mouth.

Nory Oakes

319 Hell Hollow Road, Voluntown, CT 06384

(860) 564-1977

—–Original Message—–
From: Beth Segali [mailto:bsegali@maxcomrealty.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:26 PM
To: nory@classroomgenius.com
Subject: Fwd: High Mercury Levels Found in One-Fourth of Adults

On 7/24/07, BULLELKMAN@aol.com < BULLELKMAN@aol.com> wrote:

Hi Friends,

Here is a letter to the editor opportunity for us. I think it would be great if a few of you would share your opinion/your story/your concerns about mercury dental fillings with the New York Times.

Send you e-mails to letters@nytimes.com . Try and keep your letters to about 150 words. Let’s try and get the words mercury dental fillings in the New York Times.

Thank you,
Mary Ann Newell

High Mercury Levels Found in One-Fourth of Adults

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24mercury.html

One-quarter of adult New Yorkers, roughly 1.4 million people, have elevated levels of mercury in their blood, mainly from eating certain fish, according to survey results released yesterday by the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
The elevated mercury levels that were found pose little, if any, health risk for adults, but may increase the risk of neurological damage in fetuses and infants whose mothers pass on the mercury through their bloodstreams during pregnancy or through breast milk.

“These are not risks that are significant at all or existent for adults,” said Daniel Kass, the assistant commissioner for environmental surveillance and policy at the Health Department. “These are really issues for the developing brain and nervous system.”

My enlightenment came almost 20 years ago after discovering how the mercury vapor given off by the scrap amalgam in the glass jar in my office had eaten through the metal lid. I began to learn more about the lies about the inert nature of mercury in dental fillings. After reading the headline story of the August 20th ADA News “Amalgam Economics”, I felt that the naivety of ADA members needed to be addressed.

I cannot deny the durability and ease of placement of dental amalgam. I cannot deny the technique sensitivity of composite placement, or the difficulty of presentation of gold onlays or full-coverage restorations to patients who have an unwillingness to pay out of pocket or an entitlement mentality regarding insurance coverage.

I cannot fathom, however, the lemmings in my profession; the so-called scientists who have failed to make the connection that mercury, the most toxic naturally-occurring substance on this planet, is being placed in the heads of human beings. The American Dental Association should be thrilled that the FDA is primed to ban the use of dental mercury to some extent. Dentists should be excited that the 1850’s technology that has been the basis for the salvation of human dentitions has been supplanted by 21st Century technology.

Instead, we get an article about how much more it’s going to cost the American public to fill their cavities with less toxic materials. And in that article there is again the ADA diatribe that there is no significant evidence of harm. As an attendee at the FDA mercury filling hearings in September of 2006, I can attest to the fact that the overwhelming evidence presented against mercury was scientific, and that the pro-mercury (ADA) side presented evidence that the principal reason for the continuation of the use of mercury fillings was cost-containment.

How then did it come to pass that the panel of 20 FDA scientists present voted by an almost 2:1 margin, not to support their own FDA white paper advocating the lack of scientific evidence? How then did the panel then interrogate the author of said white paper as to how he managed to ignore so much scientific evidence? The defining moment was when after several pointed questions, he stated, “I was only following orders.”

I encourage all dentists to open their minds (if the mercury hasn’t caused significant axon degeneration) and read the literature. Go to my website, or the website of the IAOMT (www.iaomt.org) and learn about the science of mercury. Read the research of Murray Vimy, and Boyd Hailey, and others who have long-recognized just as the MD’s who used to specialize on dentistry in the 1800’s: Mercury does not belong in human heads.
Twenty years ago, and obedient ADA servant, I too would have shunned this information. Then my eyes were opened by the ADA’s response to the Vimy study: “That research was done on sheep, not humans.”

Vimy repeated the study with the same results on primates. Before those results were published, my practice had stopped placing mercury in patients’ heads. Dr. Vimy, you see, is a wet-fingered dentist in Calgary, like you and I. His research study, which involved the use of a traceable radioisotope of mercury in fillings, was able to study the dispersion of that isotope to various organ systems of the sheep, and across the placenta to the fetuses. It was his intention with the design of this study to prove that mercury was safe, and that people like Huggins were charlatans. Imagine his surprise when he found that the “mercury-in-fillings-is-safe-diatribe” was fallacy. Imagine his shock when this well-conceived study, done under the auspices of the medical school at Calgary, was summarily dismissed by the ADA as ill-conceived?

One of the things I teach my students is that theirr dental education starts when they get their license to practice. Think back to your days in dental school. How many lectures did you receive about mercury? My first was 31 years after graduation at an IAOMT meeting. What did you learn about fluoride? More on fluoride later. The half-life of medical information is five years. How is it that we are still using a toxic material, that was shunned by half the profession over 150 years ago? How is it that state departments of environmental protection are mandating mercury separators on dental offices? Could it be that the mercury you are using doctor, is not inert once amalgamated?

I encourage you to learn about how mercury, once across the blood-brain barrier causes axon degeneration. I encourage you to learn about how some individuals with the APO-E 2 gene are better protected than those with APO E 4. The concern over a small percentage of the population that is “allergic” to mercury is subterfuge. This is a toxic reaction that some patients are more genetically predisposed to than others. Symptoms of mercury toxicity include:

• Tremors in fine voluntary muscles
• Depression, fatigue, increased irritability, moodiness, nervous excitability – especially when criticized
• Inability to concentrate, loss of memory
• Insomnia or drowsiness
• Birth defects in offspring
• Infertility – to name a few

Corporate diatribe to promote mercury filling safety has included the nun study, and the New England children’s studies. Investigate further and learn how poorly constructed these studies that the ADA used as scientific proof of mercury filling safety were.

On the same page, of the same issue of the ADA News was an article refuting anti-fluoridation information in the media. Again, let me ask you to open that space between your ears. What do you remember about the action of fluoride? It changes hydroxyapatite into fluorhydroxyapatite which is less soluble in acid, right? How does fluoride given systemically end up hardening teeth? Some of it ends up in the saliva, and bathes the enamel. Where does the rest of it go?

If you wanted to prevent the sun from causing skin cancer, would you put SPF 50 in the water supply? No, of course not. You would apply it topically. So while that space between your ears is still receiving doctor, do a web-search for “fluoride & osteosarcoma.” Forget the ADA’s defense of fluorosis. I’d much rather treat a child with fluorosis than one with osteosarcoma. But I’d rather this child not be my grandchild at all.

I realize that the dissemination of this message is unlikely to get through to dentists through ADA dental publications. I therefore ask that if your eyes have been opened at all by any of the information I’ve provided here, that you forward it on to other colleagues of yours who perhaps have been practicing with blinders on since their graduation.

Stephen Markus, DMD FACE – ADA member since 1975
The Center for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
Smarkus147545@comcast.net

The American Dental Assoc. has reversed its longstanding opposition to dentists installing technology to catch the mercury they don’t put in patients’ mouths. The ADA has ended its whining that dentists have no duty to spend $700 to address the destructive pollution that they — the nation’s #1 mercury polluter — cause. On October 2 in San Francisco, its House of Delegates voted to mandate mercury separators in every dental office. Consumers for Dental Choice has long endorsed separators, because after mercury fillings are banned, dentists must continue to remove this toxin from people’s teeth for a generation to come.

The ADA’s retreat on mercury fillings is hardly surprising. This pro-mercury trade group is now under fire from all sides. A page 1 story this week in the New York Times blames the ADA and the dental boards for using its powers to block competition and hence deny low-income children basic oral health care. www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/business/11decay.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin. This news should end the ADA’s ridiculous position that mercury fillings are the only way to serve the poor – the facts are that ADA blocks the very programs that will serve the poor. Here is my letter to the editor:

Re: Am. Dental Assoc. responsible for abysmal oral health care for the poor

To the Editor, In “Boom Times for Dentistry” [Oct. 11], reporter Alex Berenson explains the economic forces that lead to abysmal oral health care for America’s working poor. By focusing on public relations, political aggrandizement, and amassing wealth for dentists, the American Dental Association bears primary responsibility. By controlling the process of who gets appointed to dental boards, the ADA and its state affiliates use this power effectively to prevent competition from dental hygienists, those willing and able to serve the poor. The nation’s two-tiered system of oral health care is manifested in the continued use of mercury amalgam — which the ADA deceptively calls ‘silver fillings’ — on lower-income American, while upper-income Americans receive non-toxic alternatives. This duality was characterized by an NAACP witness testifying before Congress as ‘mercury for the poor and choice for the rich.’