Despite all the cheerleading for implant dentistry, the market still seems less than great: rebounding from the global economic turmoil but nowhere near the 15% growth it once knew.
Maybe that explains the increasing stress on the message that implants are the ideal solution for missing teeth – whether they are or aren’t.
An article we recently discovered on the Weston A. Price Foundation website does quite a good job of explaining both the virtues of implants and downside of the standard titanium implants conventional dentistry prefers. Recent research has shown that these “both corrode and degrade , generating metallic debris” which can wreak havoc in the body. Oral galvanism, of course, is also an issue.
The alternative – zirconium – is an improvement. The material is broadly biocompatible and metal-free – light years beyond the first implants that were fabricated 3000 some years ago from seashells or gold that was then pounded into jawbone. But there’s a downside here, as well.
Simply, it’s short-sighted to think that just because a person has no allergic or otherwise toxic response soon after placement, the implant is of no biological consequence. As with so many environmental toxins, it’s the accumulation of physical insults over time that makes the difference. Symptoms may take years to emerge. If or when they do, it may be impossible to identify any single cause. Invariably, there are many throughout the patient’s lifetime, collectively interfering with a body’s natural self-regulating, self-healing abilities.
I have an aesthetically pleasing and functional implant that was installed in 2009 that is perfectly integrated with the bone—-a measure of “success” by most dental practitioners.
My health, however, has significantly declined since the implant was placed. Contributing factors of a swine flu vaccine and unknown toxic mold in the home I was living have taken their toll. It all adds up. What people need to know is that if they encounter health issues suspected or curiously coinciding with the implant placement that they will most likely need to seek help from practitioners other than those responsible for the demise of their health.
As with mercury, root canals and other potential dental triggers, there will always be some people who are able to tolerate implants. Not all can, though, and we don’t yet have a way of determining definitively who. Because of this, we believe it best to proceed cautiously – and for patients to become informed so they can know their options and make the choice that’s best for them.
As the author of the WAPF article on implants reminds, “Patients have the final say.”