From: Edd111@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 29 2000 - 08:03:04 MST
In a message dated 2/27/00 9:14:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de writes:
<< > Greece, Scandinavia for 3 more months (the dental care, even in
Deutschland
> was medieval- people love gold crowns on their front teeth, not to
mention
Err, you have missed the whole amalgam debacle, have you? UV cured
polymer doesn't age well, cements are also inferior.
So far Au is still gold standard in dental materials. Maybe
aesthetically less than perfect, but toxicologically uncontroversial
and damn durable. >>
Excuse me, but as a cosmetic dentist for 20 years, with an undergraduate
materials degree in engineering, I just might have a modicum more information
and experience with dental restorative materials than you. Au is NOT the
standard in dental materials. It was... 50 years ago, but believe it or not,
dental technology has actually significantly advanced since 1950! And your
quote, 'the polymer doesn't age well'. I, like most dentists, have been
using polymers for years and years, and I would choose a polymer restorative
way over dental gold, or amalgams anytime. In fact, if you've attended any
continuing education dental class in dental materials over the past 10 years,
you would know that amalgam is the last thing to use because it simply cracks
teeth and induces leakage.
For example, everyday, I'll show patients a 25x view of their teeth on the TV
monitor, with my intraoral camera, and freeze-frame it. You would be amazed
how much cracking, leaking, wear, and recurrent decay is under most large old
fillings. They are walking timebombs for future crowns and endodontia, but
that is another subject altogether.
Finally, you mentioned that cements are inferior, regarding polymers. Your
facts are rather jumbled, as a dentist does not generally use cements under
polymer restorative materials anyway. They use a luting agent which is
bonded on.
Ed Reifman, MS, DDS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:06 MST