Amalgam ist unschädlich....

[franka]

Aus der Ärztezeitung von heute:

Freispruch für Amalgamfüllungen
Geistige Leistungsfähigkeit von Kindern nicht beeinflußt / Zwei Studien veröffentlicht
SEATTLE / WATERTOWN (hub). Zahnfüllungen aus Amalgam schaden offenbar nicht der Entwicklung von Kindern. Zwei Vergleichsstudien haben jetzt ergeben: Intelligenz und Gedächtnis sind bei Kindern mit Amalgamplomben ähnlich gut wie bei Kindern, die Kunststoff-Füllungen erhalten.

Der Frage der Neurotoxizität von Amalgamfüllungen sind jetzt Wissenschaftler aus den USA in zwei Studien nachgegangen (JAMA 295, 2006, 1775 und 1784): In der einen Studie wurden 534 Kinder im Alter von sechs bis zehn Jahren fünf Jahre lang beobachtet.

In der anderen Studie wurden über sieben Jahre Daten von 507 Acht- bis Zehnjährigen erhoben. Wurden Füllungen nötig, erhielt jeweils eine Hälfte der Kinder Amalgam- und die andere Hälfte Kunststoff-Füllungen (sogenannte Composites).

Mit den Kindern wurden am Ende umfangreiche neuropsychologische Tests gemacht. Getestet wurden Intelligenz, Aufmerksamkeit, Gedächtnisleistung und Koordinationsfähigkeit.

Beide Forscherteams fanden hier keine Unterschiede zwischen den beiden Gruppen von Kindern. In einer der Studien wurde auch die Nervenleitgeschwindigkeit gemessen - ohne Unterschiede in den beiden Gruppen.

Der Quecksilberwert im Urin war bei Kindern mit Amalgamfüllungen in beiden Studien höher. Unterschiede in der Nierenfunktion gab es jedoch keine.

Die Furcht vor Schäden durch Amalgam sollte kein Kriterium für die Auswahl der Füllung sein, so die Forscher. Zudem halten Amalgam-Füllungen länger als solche aus Kunststoff: In der Amalgamgruppe wurden im Mittel zwei neue Füllungen notwendig, in der Compositegruppe drei.

Bereits 2004 wurde eine Studie bei Erwachsenen veröffentlicht (wir berichteten). Amalgamfüllungen waren demnach nicht mit Depressionen, Konzentrations- oder Gedächtnisstörungen assoziiert.


....mir bleibt nur noch die Spucke weg.
Werd mal sehen ob ich rauskriege, wer das in Auftrag gegeben hat. nirgendwo ist die Verquickung von Herstellern, Zahnärzten und Politik derartig verflochten wie in den USA.
Franka

[Elloran]

Hallo Franka,

solche "Studien" werden häufig von der Industrie gesponsert. So auch im Fall von Pyrethroiden.
Und dann ist die Frage wieviele Personen haben daran teilgenommen. Meist ist es ein so geringer Teil, 10 Personen oder so, dass man damit wirklich keine Rückschlüsse auf die gesammte Bevölkerung ziehen kann.
Und dann kommt es ja auch auf die Menge der Füllungen an.
Ich denke mit drei Füllungen kann man noch leben, sinds aber 10, dann hat man sicher ein Problem, das sich jedoch erst in mehreren Jahren herauskristalisiert.

Ich finde solche Studien, genau wie du, lächerlich.

Viele Grüsse

[Clarissa]

ich hatte amalgan-, kunstofffüllungen und eine goldkrone, das war der blanke horror und keiner hast es mir geglaubt, erst wie die goldkrone ab musste wurde es besser, dann noch das amalgan alles raus und seitdem sind die schmerzen weg, zufall? nein unverträglichkeit auf div. metalle.

[Alex]

Hier ist die Originalstudie:
Dental Amalgam May Not Be Harmful for Children CME
News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD

Release Date: April 18, 2006;

April 18, 2006 — Two randomized studies reported in the April 19 issue of JAMA suggest a lack of harm for children treated with dental amalgam compared with dental materials not containing mercury. The editorialist recommends more rigorous testing.

"No randomized trials have been published that address the concern that inhalation of mercury vapor released by amalgam dental restorations causes adverse health effects," write David C. Bellinger, PhD, MSc, from Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass, and colleagues. "Occupational exposures resulting in urinary mercury levels greater than 50 µg/L have been associated with various neurological, renal, and immunological impairments. Potential effects of lower occupational levels of mercury have also been evaluated, but results are inconsistent."

Between September 1997 and March 2005, the New England Children's Amalgam Trial enrolled 534 children from 5 community health dental clinics in Boston and one in Farmington, Me. These children were aged 6 to 10 years at baseline with no prior amalgam restorations and 2 or more posterior teeth with caries. They were randomized to receive dental restoration of baseline and incident caries during a 5-year follow-up period using either amalgam or resin composite materials. The main neuropsychological endpoint was a 5-year change in full-scale IQ scores, and secondary endpoints included tests of memory and visuomotor ability. Renal glomerular function was measured by creatinine-adjusted albumin in urine.

During the 5-year period, children had a mean of 15 tooth surfaces restored (median, 14; range, 0 - 55). At year 5, the amalgam group had a significantly higher mean urinary mercury level (0.9 vs 0.6 µg/g of creatinine; P <.001). After adjustment for randomization stratum and other covariates, 5-year change in full-scale IQ score was not statistically significant between children in the amalgam and composite groups (3.1 vs 2.1; P = .21). The difference in treatment group change scores was 1.0 full-scale IQ score point (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 2.5). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for 4-year change in the general memory index (8.1 vs 7.2; P = .34), 4-year change in the visuomotor composite (3.8 vs 3.7; P = .93), or year 5 urinary albumin (median, 7.5 vs 7.4 mg/g of creatinine; P = .61).

"In this study, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse neuropsychological or renal effects observed over the 5-year period in children whose caries were restored using dental amalgam or composite materials," the authors write. "Although it is possible that very small IQ effects cannot be ruled out, these findings suggest that the health effects of amalgam restorations in children need not be the basis of treatment decisions when choosing restorative dental materials."

Study limitations include lack of generalizability to children who receive amalgam restorations before age 6 years when sensitivity to mercury toxicity might be greater; follow-up period limited to 5 years; few data available to guide the selection of endpoints; trial not designed to detect rare adverse effects; sample size insufficient to detect smaller between-group differences in the IQ change scores; and inability to assess the safety of the composite used.

"Under the conditions of use represented in this trial, there is no reason to discontinue use of mercury amalgam as the standard of care for caries in posterior teeth," the authors write. "This is a particularly important consideration for areas both in the United States and in other countries, where the replacement of mercury amalgam with a composite restoration material may not be feasible with respect to factors such as cost, storage, and expertise in handling, and thus could adversely affect the dental as well as general health of the population being served."

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The New England Research Institutes and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research supported this study.

The second randomized trial, led by Timothy A. DeRouen, PhD, from the University of Washington in Seattle, began enrollment in February 1997, with annual follow-up for 7 years concluding in July 2005. In Lisbon, Portugal, 507 children aged 8 to 10 years with at least 1 carious lesion on a permanent tooth, no previous exposure to amalgam, urinary mercury level less than 10 µg/L, blood lead level less than 15 µg/dL, Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence IQ of 67 or higher, and no interfering health conditions were randomized to receive posterior restorations with either amalgam or resin composite. Primary endpoints were neurobehavioral assessments of memory, attention-concentration, and motor-visuomotor domains, as well as nerve conduction velocities.

During the 7-year study, children had restoration of a mean of 18.7 tooth surfaces (median, 16) in the amalgam group and 21.3 (median, 18) in the composite group. Baseline mean creatinine-adjusted urinary mercury levels were 1.8 µg/g in the amalgam group and 1.9 µg/g in the composite group. However, during follow-up, these levels were 1.0 to 1.5 µg/g higher in the amalgam group than in the composite group (P <.001).

Measures of memory, attention, visuomotor function, or nerve conduction velocities were not significantly different in the 2 groups during the 7-year follow-up or at any time point. Beginning at 5 years after initial treatment, the need for additional restorative treatment was about 50% higher in the composite group.

"In this study, children who received dental restorative treatment with amalgam did not, on average, have statistically significant differences in neurobehavioral assessments or in nerve conduction velocity when compared with children who received resin composite materials without amalgam," the authors conclude. "These findings, combined with the trend of higher treatment need later among those receiving composite, suggest that amalgam should remain a viable dental restorative option for children."

The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research of the National Institutes of Health funded this study. Two authors have disclosed relationships with the Ivoclar Vivadent Co or Dentsply DeTry Co.

In an accompanying editorial, Herbert L. Needleman, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, notes that there are limits to the inferences that can be drawn from the data collected in these 2 studies.

"[These studies] represent thoughtful and important contributions to understanding the question of dental amalgam risks in children, but the question of more subtle effects remains open," Dr. Needleman writes. "Given the numbers of children exposed to dental amalgam, it is critical that further rigorous studies examine the molecular effects of the toxicant at appropriate doses, measure exposure as precisely as possible, and explore the important question of vulnerability factors."

Dr. Needleman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

JAMA. 2006;295:1775-1792, 1835-1836

[franka]

hallo alex,
danke das du dich auf die suche gemacht hast nach dem artikel und mir die arbeit abgenommen hast.
bin im moment total schachmatt und kriege nichts auf die reihe
l.g. von franka