Mercury Hygiene Reviewand Toxicology<br />PDC Vancouver- March 12, 2011<br />Jessica Saepoff DDS<br />naturaldentist.com<b...
2007<br />
2003- safety of personnel<br />
2006-line cleaners (abstract)<br />
2002-amalgam separators (abstract)<br />
2006- separators/ISO (abstract)<br />
2003- installation (abstract)<br />
Amalgam waste best management, dentist version<br />
End of ‘dentist version’<br />
2005<br />
Voluntary Installation Flyer no date <br />
2007<br />
Training dentists in the mercury BMP’s resulted in more precautions<br />
2009<br />
LSRO ‘No evidence of adverse health affects’ but significant gaps in the research -2009<br />
 The Research ‘gaps’ still existing as of 2009<br />
2008<br />
Informed Consent<br />
ADA site search‘mercury hygiene’<br />
1998 <br />
‘mercury hygiene’#1 result of search is this1998 document<br />
Breathing Zone Air<br />
Exposure level is not important if you can’t show health affects<br />
FDA 2009 – Amalgam reclassified as ‘more risk’<br />
 FDA references are all prior to the 2009 LSRO ‘gap’ comment<br />
Questions to consider considering<br />Who has donestudies on mercury vapor levels in dental offices (that remove amalgams...
Two reasonableconclusions<br />Mercury from amalgam has not been proven to be the sole cause of any health problems for pa...
Public Awareness‘mercury IQ’<br />Every reference used in this presentation is available to the public directly andthrough...
THANKYOU!Contact  for  questions425-427-8899jpsaepoff@naturaldentist.com<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ppt mercury hygiene review vancouver bc

2,117 views

Published on

American Dental Association recommendations to dentists to avoid exposure to mercury from amalgam filling material

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Ppt mercury hygiene review vancouver bc

  1. 1. Mercury Hygiene Reviewand Toxicology<br />PDC Vancouver- March 12, 2011<br />Jessica Saepoff DDS<br />naturaldentist.com<br />
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5. 2007<br />
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16. 2003- safety of personnel<br />
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24. 2006-line cleaners (abstract)<br />
  25. 25.
  26. 26. 2002-amalgam separators (abstract)<br />
  27. 27.
  28. 28. 2006- separators/ISO (abstract)<br />
  29. 29.
  30. 30. 2003- installation (abstract)<br />
  31. 31. Amalgam waste best management, dentist version<br />
  32. 32.
  33. 33. End of ‘dentist version’<br />
  34. 34. 2005<br />
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
  42. 42. Voluntary Installation Flyer no date <br />
  43. 43.
  44. 44. 2007<br />
  45. 45. Training dentists in the mercury BMP’s resulted in more precautions<br />
  46. 46.
  47. 47. 2009<br />
  48. 48.
  49. 49. LSRO ‘No evidence of adverse health affects’ but significant gaps in the research -2009<br />
  50. 50. The Research ‘gaps’ still existing as of 2009<br />
  51. 51.
  52. 52. 2008<br />
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
  55. 55. Informed Consent<br />
  56. 56. ADA site search‘mercury hygiene’<br />
  57. 57. 1998 <br />
  58. 58.
  59. 59. ‘mercury hygiene’#1 result of search is this1998 document<br />
  60. 60. Breathing Zone Air<br />
  61. 61.
  62. 62.
  63. 63. Exposure level is not important if you can’t show health affects<br />
  64. 64. FDA 2009 – Amalgam reclassified as ‘more risk’<br />
  65. 65.
  66. 66. FDA references are all prior to the 2009 LSRO ‘gap’ comment<br />
  67. 67. Questions to consider considering<br />Who has donestudies on mercury vapor levels in dental offices (that remove amalgams by drilling)?<br />What is the difference between the average mercury level in dental office air and the level in the immediate area of the drilling where the dentist and staff are sitting during the drilling out of the amalgam?<br />Are there any precautions for the public on handling (or properly recycling) exfoliated or broken pieces of teeth that contain amalgam? Is it hazardous waste?<br />
  68. 68. Two reasonableconclusions<br />Mercury from amalgam has not been proven to be the sole cause of any health problems for patients, dentists and staff, or the environment, therefore precautions are not really necessary. Voluntary measures are all that are needed, not oppressive mandates or laws. There has already been enough research.<br />Mercury from amalgam has not been proven to be safe beyond doubt for patients, dentists and staff, or the environment. There is ample evidence and scientific consensus that less exposure to mercury is better since it does accumulate in our CNS. We should use every precaution known unless it is proven safe. There are still gaps in the research.<br />
  69. 69. Public Awareness‘mercury IQ’<br />Every reference used in this presentation is available to the public directly andthrough the ADA website. <br />Most patients are not thrilledto learn that they have mercury in their teeth. Usually they are not fearful or angry about it either. <br />Once informed, most patients greatly appreciate any precautions that are taken to prevent exposure to it during removal, and want the environment protected as well. (ADA estimate: preference for green is 77%)<br />My experience is that there actually are a few patients out there are specifically preferring dentists that take precautions, including protection of the environment.<br />
  70. 70. THANKYOU!Contact for questions425-427-8899jpsaepoff@naturaldentist.com<br />

×