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

1. Mercury Hygiene Reviewand Toxicology PDC Vancouver- March 12, 2011 Jessica Saepoff DDS naturaldentist.com

5. 2007

16. 2003- safety of personnel

24. 2006-line cleaners (abstract)

26. 2002-amalgam separators (abstract)

28. 2006- separators/ISO (abstract)

30. 2003- installation (abstract)

31. Amalgam waste best management, dentist version

33. End of ‘dentist version’

34. 2005

42. Voluntary Installation Flyer no date

44. 2007

45. Training dentists in the mercury BMP’s resulted in more precautions

47. 2009

49. LSRO ‘No evidence of adverse health affects’ but significant gaps in the research -2009

50. The Research ‘gaps’ still existing as of 2009

52. 2008

55. Informed Consent

56. ADA site search‘mercury hygiene’

57. 1998

59. ‘mercury hygiene’#1 result of search is this1998 document

60. Breathing Zone Air

63. Exposure level is not important if you can’t show health affects

64. FDA 2009 – Amalgam reclassified as ‘more risk’

66. FDA references are all prior to the 2009 LSRO ‘gap’ comment

67. Questions to consider considering Who has donestudies on mercury vapor levels in dental offices (that remove amalgams by drilling)? 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? 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?

68. Two reasonableconclusions 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. 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.

69. Public Awareness‘mercury IQ’ Every reference used in this presentation is available to the public directly andthrough the ADA website. Most patients are not thrilledto learn that they have mercury in their teeth. Usually they are not fearful or angry about it either. 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%) My experience is that there actually are a few patients out there are specifically preferring dentists that take precautions, including protection of the environment.

70. THANKYOU!Contact for questions425-427-8899jpsaepoff@naturaldentist.com