farmdoc's blog post number 475

Dental amalgam [1, 2] is the most common substance used for dental fillings. First used in the early 1800s in France, it contains a mixture of mercury and one or more other metals. For decades it’s been the restorative material of choice – due to low cost, easy application, strength, durability, and bacteriostasis. But in recent years its use has been declining due to health concerns, aesthetics, environmental pollution from cremation, and improved alternative materials. As I wrote here, I have many amalgam dental fillings – because I was born 30 years before the local water supply was fluoridated, and in those 30 years amalgam was the most commonly used filling material. They’re not front tooth fillings so I have no cosmetic concerns. I haven’t been cremated yet; and I’m unlikely to be in future. But the health issue’s a concern to me because mercury’s toxic. So I eagerly read the US FDA’s updated policy [3, 4] issued in late July after study of 200 scientific studies, that upgrades mercury amalgam from Class I (low risk) to Class II (moderate risk) whilst continuing to judge it safe if long-term fillings have no decay under them. And the FDA says removal of amalgam fillings potentially creates a bigger mercury health risk that leaving the fillings alone. I suppose I’m reassured. But I’ve a nagging doubt the FDA’s conclusion was coloured by the fact that mass removal of the population’s amalgam fillings would swamp the dental system. Ho hum.

farmdoc's blog post number 422

The fluoridation of Melbourne’s water supply began in February 1977 [1]. Until then, dental decay was ubiquitous and severe in Melbourne. I know. My many amalgam and porcelain fillings are testament to the fact I was almost 30 years old in February 1977. I’ll bet you anything no Melburnian born after February 1977 has anywhere near the number of fillings I have. Also important in the prevention of dental decay and periodontal disease is oral hygiene. This short article by periodontist Christopher Daly, in the June 2009 issue of Australian Prescriber, is relevant and interesting. He writes that mechanical procedures are the mainstay of good oral hygiene; because they splay, only soft-bristled toothbrushes should be used; small-headed toothbrushes are preferred because they more easily access the more inaccessible places (most people don’t effectively clean the inner surfaces of the their lower teeth); brushing should be twice per day; two minutes is the optimum duration for plaque removal; toothbrush wear doesn’t impede plaque removal; no one brushing technique’s more effective than the others; toothpaste’s unnecessary for plaque removal but it delivers fluoride; gum massage doesn’t prevent gum disease; once-daily cleaning between the teeth with floss or preferably an interdental brush is needed; the aim is to wipe the interdental tooth surfaces; interdental woodsticks are ineffective; and plaque also forms on denture surfaces.

farmdoc's blog post number 521

Sport. It’s defined as ‘physical activity engaged in for pleasure’. Or similar. Most sport is just this. But elite sport most definitely isn’t. Somewhere way back when – I don’t know exactly but during my lifetime, elite sport morphed into an amalgam of business and entertainment. And at the exact moment it arrived at that destination, my interest in it dwindled to almost zero. Just a flicker. Arguably at the pinnacle of so-called elite sport (aka elite business and entertainment) is the Olympic Games. If you thought its governing body – the International Olympic Committee – is a sensible, rational and reputable body, you’d be wrong. That’s what I think, anyway. Witness its recent decision to include women’s boxing in the 2012 London Olympics. Boxing’s the only ‘sport’ I know whose primary aim is to injure one’s opponent [1]. And if possible to render him/her unconscious. That’s barbaric. Inhumane. Objectionable. I’m pleased the AMA, which I’m a member of, has condemned the IOC’s decision. As has the BMA. It’s true men’s boxing has long been an Olympic ‘sport’. Probably because of this longevity, it’s difficult to remove it. But adding women’s boxing varies the status quo. The IOC’s decision has no direct impact on me. But it’s subjecting the competing women boxers to potentially disastrous consequences. Including death. Shame on you, IOC.