Fluoridation and Amalgams

[Audio]

How should we answer our stance on these two issues? I'm assuming that dental schools and dentists in general take the ADA stance that mass fluoridation is safe, as is the use of mercury in amalgams. Should we adopt this view?

My personal view is that with all of the conflicting reports, a joint research team should conduct studies on the effects of both. Also, I'd say the use of these two is acceptable because no conclusive evidence had been provided that says use of any fluoride or amalgams causes direct effects.

What do you guys think? There is tons of evidence supporting both views and quite frankly, I probably won't be able to make a final decision on these issues until I start to practice.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[superchris147]

How should we answer our stance on these two issues? I'm assuming that dental schools and dentists in general take the ADA stance that mass fluoridation is safe, as is the use of mercury in amalgams. Should we adopt this view?

My personal view is that with all of the conflicting reports, a joint research team should conduct studies on the effects of both. Also, I'd say the use of these two is acceptable because no conclusive evidence had been provided that says use of any fluoride or amalgams causes direct effects.

What do you guys think? There is tons of evidence supporting both views and quite frankly, I probably won't be able to make a final decision on these issues until I start to practice.

We have gotten a lot of lectures on these topics here in my first semester and they have shown us a ton of evidence/data that both are safe. However, since i'm too lazy to search for links on pubmed then you can merely consider this an opinion as opposed to fact.

But if they ask you about amalgam in an interview it would probably be more beneficial for you talk about the pros/cons to using it instead of composite resin. Such as it can cause tooth discoloration, teeth cracking, easy to place, inexpensive, etc etc etc. that's an easy way to show them that you have lots of experience

 

[CayleStanley]

there does not seem to be any direct evidence pointing to the role of dental amalgams in micromercurialism. however there are suggested mechanisms for the role of small amounts of inorganic mercury playing a role in Alzheimers for patients who are already predisposed with the homozygous alipoprotien Ee4 genotype. In this case any increase in the amount of mercury will play a role in the onset of disease. Currently there is also research ongoing in occurdence to mercury's role in autism, autoimmune disorders such as sjorgens and more. The truth of the matter is due to the release of mercury vapor in patients who are already predisposed to disease, it does pose a problem. Despite this for the masses as the ADA states mercury amalgam use is a cheap and effective way to provide oral care to the masses. With a careful look at the patients medical history and other factors which could predispose them to desease, mercury amalgams are generally safe to use, as they have been since the 19th century.

 

[djktennis]

How should we answer our stance on these two issues? I'm assuming that dental schools and dentists in general take the ADA stance that mass fluoridation is safe, as is the use of mercury in amalgams. Should we adopt this view?

My personal view is that with all of the conflicting reports, a joint research team should conduct studies on the effects of both. Also, I'd say the use of these two is acceptable because no conclusive evidence had been provided that says use of any fluoride or amalgams causes direct effects.

What do you guys think? There is tons of evidence supporting both views and quite frankly, I probably won't be able to make a final decision on these issues until I start to practice.

Are people really interested in this? At all the interviews I've been on, the interviewers keep talking about how they don't want "science nerds" coming to their dental schools. Just a thought.

 

[Audio]

Are people really interested in this? At all the interviews I've been on, the interviewers keep talking about how they don't want "science nerds" coming to their dental schools. Just a thought.

Believe me, I'm just trying to cover my ass. I've heard about people being asked these kind of questions and I had no clue what to say so I did a quick google search and found that there are two very very divided sides.

 

[Dr. Parm]

Yea, I was asked a similar question dealing with sealants and I feel that all they are looking for is your ability to carry on a serious and technical conversation. They are not looking to penalize you for the wrong answer, the wrong answer may not even exist as far as you buttress your agruments in a systematic manner.

 

[darius99]

what's a negative about sealants?

 

[CayleStanley]

Gosh I learned that stuff in High School, I thought it was common knowledge.

Actually I just turned in my senior thesis on the subject, right before I wrote that. In the interviews I had nothing of that sort was brought up, but if you are in an interview and you recognize your interviewer's name from a source you cited, asking for expert advice is beneficial to your research.

 

[Sprgrover]

Here are some quickie answers to those questions for all of you panicked at the thought of being put on the spot. They are by no means comprehensive, but should carry you well in an interview:

Sealants and fluoride are the best methods for caries (i.e. 'cavities') prevention: sealants because they seal out the bacteria and the acid they produce and fluoride because it is integrated into the hydroxyapatite crystal (turning it into fluorapatite) which makes the enamel crystal more 'perfect' and resistant to demineralization. Fluoride also inhibts enolase, an enzyme key to bacterial glycolysis (no glycolysis, no or little organic acids -specifically lactic acid-, no or little caries). Amalgams are safe as the mercury doesn't exist in it's pure elemental form and the issue of safety of both amalgams and fluoride has been demonstrated through many studies.

Why are dental schools wary of "science geeks"? A simple answer comes in the form of a quesion: "would you want (insert your favorite nightmarish science teacher here) working on tissues in your mouth, coaching you on your oral hygeine? Can you see person X being sensitive to your personal needs, anxieties, and socio-economic situation and taking a sincere interest in your over-all wellbeing?" I'm not putting down science geeks by any means - we need people like that to drive innovation and further our understanding - but it takes more than just a pulse and an understanding of the periodic table to do well in dentistry. I'm sure you have heard people say "those teeth come with a person attached to them" and that is very true. Some day each of us is going to have to venture out in the 'real' world and deal with real people with very real problems and dental schools have the responsibility of selecting those individuals that can best meet these challenges. That is one reason, and perhaps the biggest, why dental schools conduct interviews.

I'm not worried about anyone on these forums - if you are bright enough to join and contribute to SDN you're a-okay with me. Now, glance over the material above if it will calm your nerves and go wow 'em in the interview.