Non-Toxic Dental Composite Fillings & Materials by Dr. Yuriy May

Typically, most dentists use materials in dentistry approved by the FDA and generally considered safe for use. However, regular dentists rarely explore biocompatibility of materials with each individual person. Don’t be surprised if a traditional dentist that you speak to has no idea what the chemical or molecular consistency is of dental materials, whether dental composites for fillings or anesthetics.
Dental Composites – Potential Toxicity

While most dentists are using either the cheapest dental composites (as most patients don’t know the difference) and the more cosmetic and quality focused dentists are using the strongest and most durable composites, few of them, if any, actually know the potentially hazardous chemicals in dental composite materials used for bonding and filling carries.

Dr. May has done years of research on Dental Materials Chemical Properties and Bio-Chemistry of Dental Material Compounds making him an expert in the field of dental material biocompatibility and the leading dentist specialist for the safest dental materials available on the market. Most dental composites are composed of methacrylate resin monomers made of of various size and molecular weight.
Concern with onventional methacrylate monomers in Regular Dental Composite Material

Regular dental composite materials used to fill caries are composed of conventional methacrylate monomers, which are BPA, Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, GlyDMA and HEMA. These methacrylate monomers have the ability to release vapor (leaching) of the BPA and Bis-GMA unreacted, freely available monomers. This effect is later reduces once the fillings are light cured but not eliminated which means that all the conventional methacrylate monomers like BPA and Bis-GMA can continue to leach for the duration of the composite being in the patients’ mouth. Light curing is the process by which a dentist transforms the composite fillings from a liquid to a solid state.
Biocompatible Dental Fillings Used by Dr. Yuriy May

For low-toxicity dental fillings and dental cosmetic bonding, Dr. May exclusively uses Admira Fusion Ormocer which is a Nano-Hybrid Ormocer (ORganically-MOdified CERamic). This ceramic material is no longer a methacrylate based composite but instead is closer to a ceramic or silica based (think glass) material. Importantly, it DOES NOT contain conventional monomers such as Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, GlyDMA and HEMA
Testing Indicating that Dr. May’s Dental Composite has no traces of Conventional Methacrylate Monomers

Samples were then taken from Admira Fusion and other conventional composite materials to test for the various chemical properties. For each composite, the resin matrix broken down into the individual components by means of gas chromatography (“GC”) and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).
The gas chromatography spectrum clearly shows that no methacrylate monomers with a low molecular weight are used in uncured Admira Fusion. In addition, the claim that no conventional methacrylate monomers are used is confirmed yet again by the analysis of the already cured Admira Fusion test specimen. Conventional monomers such as BPA, Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, GlyDMA and HEMA can be detected with this measuring method, as is the case in the comparative spectrum of the conventional composites available on the market and used in the study. In the case of traditional dental composite materials, conventional methacrylate monomers are detected in both the uncured and the cured specimens of the composite. While the curing of the composite lowers the concentration of unreacted, freely available monomers significantly, conventional dental composites still retain monomers such as BPA and Bis-GMA, GlyDMA,and HEMA, even in their cured states.
White Composite Fillings

Composite fills are completed with a restorative material that contains 30-50% less resin than many other composite brands. Less resin means a reduction in the presence of trace amounts of bisphenols. The composite filling used in our office does not contain any Bisphenol A or B. The composite material used by Dr. DeGregorio tests high for biocompatibility among patients.

Even for smaller restorations, positive points of comparison with amalgams do not mean composites are the perfect filling material for everyone. There is speculation over potential estrogen-mimicking effects of plastic chemicals like Bisphenol A contained in certain composite resins.

Any dental material made with BisGMA may contain trace amounts of Bisphenol A. Some companies strive to produce significantly less toxic materials. VOCO (www.voco.com) brand restorative materials contain 30-50% less resin than many other composite brands, proportionately reducing potential presence of trace amounts of bisphenols. Furthermore, VOCO does not add Bisphenol A or B to its composites. Because less resin is present in its products, VOCO tests high for biocompatibility (Clifford Labs: ccrlab.com), and Scientific Health Solutions classifies VOCO products (Admira, Grandio, etc.) in the Least Reactive Components category for dental restorative materials. Other brands similar to VOCO are available.

Porcelain Restorations

Porcelain is the most biocompatible, hypo-allergenic, non-metallic restorative material of which we are aware at this time. Porcelain restorations are also dramatically less effected by factors that influence longevity of both amalgams and white composite fillings: i.e., restorative technique, filling size, your body chemistry, and your nutritional intake. Porcelain restorations (inlays, onlays, crowns) can last 12-15 years or longer. We offer lab-processed porcelain or, for your convenience, CEREC CAD/CAM technology for same-day, on-site porcelain restorations.

Longevity

Potential longevity of dental restorations is a critical factor because every dental procedure represents trauma to the nerve of the tooth. Repeated trauma to the nerve from filling replacement during the course of a lifetime will eventually cause nerve breakdown. Porcelain restorations cost more initially than amalgams or composites, but porcelain’s longevity decreases the potential need for root canal therapy.

Whether the filling is of amalgam, white composite or porcelain, longevity is influenced by the amount of natural tooth structure preserved during removal of decay. An amalgam filling cannot adhere to tooth surfaces, and the amalgam-placing dentist must create an undercut after removing decay, sacrificing healthy tooth structure to trap the amalgam filling in place. For composites or porcelain, the dentist strives to remove decay only. The cleaned-out space inside the tooth for a composite or porcelain prep often has relatively straight or inward-slanting walls. Healthy tooth structure is preserved.

Again, we encourage you to research safety issues surrounding amalgam restorations for yourself. When existing amalgam fillings are mechanically intact, it must be your personal choice to have them replaced with other materials, whether for health or esthetic reasons.

More on BPA in Tooth-Colored Composite Fillings

by Office | Feb 12, 2015 | Dental Restorations
More on BPA in Tooth-Colored Composite Fillings

Choosing which materials to use to repair, replace, align or cosmetically enhance teeth isn’t a simple matter. In each case, the dentist has to consider a wide of factors related to where and how they’ll be used.

composite fillingBicompatibility is also a fundamental concern, at least to the biological dentist. While there are some materials, such as zirconium, that are considered broadly biocompatible – safe to use on nearly everyone – each person is biochemically and bioenergetically unique. Each has their own history of illnesses, dental and medical treatments, environmental exposures and so on – factors that have worked together to generate their current level of health or illness.

Because of this, we insist that all patients undergo biocompatibility testing when they come to our office for dental care.

Of course, there are some materials that are biocompatible for exactly no one. Their toxic potential far outweighs any presumed benefits. Mercury amalgam is one. Nickel is another.

So how about bisphenol A (BPA)?

This chemical compound is common to many brands of composite, the material used to make tooth-colored fillings, and since we first blogged about it, we’ve had a lot of follow-up questions. Increasingly, new patients come in wanting to know about how concerned they should be about BPA in their fillings. Although we’ve provided additional info here in the comments section, we know not everyone reads comment threads. So we thought we’d take some time to further discuss the issue here.

Our preferred method for determining biocompatibility is EAV, which is extremely sensitive and allows us to test a patient’s reactivity to virtually any substance. Just as accurate is serum (blood) testing, which many biological dentists rely on alone or in tandem with other testing methods. (You can read about the major testing protocols here.) For instance, the Clifford Materials Reactivty Test analyzes a blood sample for antibodies formed against 94 chemical groups and compounds. More than 16,000 materials are screened, as well as byproducts they release, to determine which products a patient may react negatively to.

BPA is one of the compounds they test for.

According to materials provided by the test’s developer, Walter Jess Clifford, there are just over half a dozen composites that their manufacturers say are “free of Bis-Phenol A in any form, whatsoever, bound or unbound.” That means that they are also free of bis-GMA and bis-DMA – chemicals from which BPA may be released. These products are:

    Diamond Crown
    Diamond Flo
    Diamond Link
    Venus Diamond
    Venus Diamond Flo
    Venus Pearl
    Visalys Temp

Other composites are claimed “to be free of dissociable, easily released or ionizable BPA.” They may still contain bis-GMA or bis-DMA, though “in fairness,” Clifford notes the amount of energy needed to release the sequestered BPA is “not usually commensurate with life.”

    Admira
    Clearfil
    Concise
    Esthet-X HD
    Filtek Supreme
    Filtek Supreme XT
    Filtek Z-250
    Grandio SO
    Herculite XR
    Kalore
    Point 4
    Premise Indirect
    Vertise Flow
    Z-100

It’s important to remember that composite is not the only BPA-free restorative alternative to amalgam. Neither ceramic nor porcelain contains the chemical. While these aren’t suitable for direct fillings, they are often ideal for indirect restorations such as inlays and crowns.

But what if you already have composite fillings that in all likelihood contain BPA?

Unlike mercury fillings, which constantly release mercury vapor after they’re placed and allegedly “stable,” BPA release from composite does not appear to be an ongoing thing. Research has shown that the greatest release comes soon after the material is placed, with no BPA detectable in saliva after 24 hours. As Clifford describes it,

    We note that humans with normal and adequate metabolism are usually capable of glycouronating [sic] any BPA and facilitating its elimination via urine or stool. On the other hand, rodents such as mice, rats, guinea pigs and the like do not have this metabolic capability and rodent model is where the large majority of studies with BPA have been done. Whether the extrapolation of rodent data against BPA in humans if fully valid or not remains to be worked out. In the meantime, many have chosen to simply avoid BPA for themselves and their children as a simple precautionary measure.

In other words, under normal conditions, our bodies are able to clear BPA pretty well – presuming that the exposure is not ongoing. Unfortunately, we live in a world where BPA is still widely used, despite concerns about its impact on health and the environment. Daily BPA exposure from consumer products is far higher than the limited one time exposure shortly after the placement of a composite filling – especially if recommended safety protocols are followed.

Too often some people get extra worried about their composite fillings once they’ve learned a little about the BPA issue. Some go so far as to consider having them removed and replaced. Based on the current evidence, we believe that would be overkill. As mentioned, if the dental work involved isn’t causing any immediate health problems that either you experience or are detected through EAV or other testing techniques, removing the composite is apt to do more harm than good. The trauma each tooth would undergo through the removal process would weaken it. The more work done, the weaker it becomes …until it becomes a candidate for root canal therapy (according to orthodox dentistry) or extraction