Suit Seeks to End Use of Mercury in Dentistry

A lawsuit filed Tuesday accuses the American Dental Assn. and the California Dental Assn. of unlawfully deceiving patients about the presence of mercury in the most widely used type of dental fillings.

The class-action suit, on behalf of several individuals and organizations, seeks to eliminate the use of mercury-containing dental amalgam. It also seeks “restitution” for payments that the ADA allegedly received to endorse amalgam products.

Attorneys in the suit said the dental associations, by referring to the fillings as “silver” rather than a half mercury, half metal amalgam, conceal the toxic nature of the material from patients.

“You don’t have to be a toxicologist,” said Stephen Rivers, a spokesman for the plaintiffs, including several nonprofit groups. “Everyone knows mercury is bad for you. They are trying to keep the reality, the truth, about what is in fillings from consumers.”

But officials at the California Dental Assn., the largest affiliate of the American Dental Assn., said they are not trying to hide anything.

“At CDA we recognize that while amalgam contains mercury, there has been no documented scientific evidence that supports the contention that the mercury contained in amalgam has any detrimental effect on the health of a patient,” said Lori Reed, a spokeswoman for the state association.

Reed noted that the ADA on its Web site lists the components of amalgam, including mercury, and states that it “is considered a safe, affordable and durable material.”

The lawsuit comes after decades of heated debate between patient advocates and dental groups over the impact that the fillings may have on patients’ health.

Fillings contain about three-quarters of a gram of mercury. Attorney Charles G. Brown, who represents a group called Consumers for Dental Choice, said a person with eight fillings has the equivalent of 6 grams of mercury in his body, a concentration that would shut down a school chemistry lab or bring a toxic cleanup crew to a lake.

Though he acknowledges that not everyone will have a negative reaction to the mercury in fillings, Brown argues that the substance can be linked to reproductive and neurological damage.

ADA literature says that in rare instances it may cause allergic reactions but that it does not have any adverse effect on overall health.

“It is toxic before it goes into your mouth, it is hazardous when it is removed from your mouth . . . but the ADA claims in the interim, when it is in your mouth, it is fine,” Rivers said.

Attorneys filing the lawsuit said the ADA simply wants to protect the money it receives from endorsing the manufacturers of the dental amalgam.

“What’s in it for them is money in the bank,” said Brown, lead counsel in the suit. Brown said the ADA, as the only health institution that continues to endorse products, has a clear conflict of interest.

“Mercury has been pulled out of all other medical uses because of its . . . toxicity,” said Brown. “The only health care profession that defends the use of it is dentistry.”

Early last year, the California Board of Dental Examiners urged dentists to discuss with patients the exposure to mercury in fillings. A state statute required the board, the regulatory agency for the profession, to update its patient fact sheet to include information about mercury.

More than a year later, the board is still working with a consultant on appropriate wording, a representative said. A meeting scheduled for Thursday to review the phrasing was canceled for lack of a quorum.

Another component of Tuesday’s lawsuit was a notice of intent to sue the ADA under California’s Proposition 65, which requires the disclosure of the presence of any toxic substances in the workplace, including mercury, that could affect reproductive or developmental health.