Martha Seagoe) writes:
 Hi Stefan & Bo7b, Some questions about amalgam replacement:
 >>If gold attracts the remaining mercury fragments to itself, wouldn't this
   be a *good* thing?  As this would hinder the escape of the mercury into
   other parts of the body?  I'm not understanding.

Probably not good 'cause the mercury (Hg) bonded to the gold (Au) would still
be retained in a place where it could be released li'l by li'l during
masticatory forces rather than just passing thru the GI tract to pollute our
sewers.

>>Also, if gold is not a good idea, what would be the best alternative?

For MY mouth, the best material is healthy enamel supported by sound dentin.
 If that were destroyed & we're not yet capable of genetically engineering
replacement with cloned enamel (still 20 years away, by my guess), then I'd
prefer gold BONDED with an insuluble material.

>>Some time ago on this list the subject was raised.  Somebody (Bob A. I
 believe) felt that porcelain was the best bet, although being clay it would
 contain aluminum which might pose problems of it's own, and also could
 be subject to chipping.  Any of you dental experts have any updated
 recommendations?

Porcelain's the most esthetic & is probly still the mateirial of choice for
restorations of large chunks of front teeth.  I'm not convinced that any
aluminum in dental porcelain is in a state where it can escape & worry the
body. Yep, it chips when the underlying tooth flexes & the porcelain doesn't,
which is why I've preferred the fifth generation lab-processed bonded
composites for conservative restoration of back teeth since about '89.

TIA, to you, too, Bo7b