 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / June 2007Titan fillings
Hi, I need some fillings. I have a choice between good old fashioned amalgam and something called 'titan'; all i know about it is that name, the fact that my dentist thinks it's more durable than amalgam, and that it will cost me eighty-odd quid a tooth more than amalgam. I've googled, and got very little; a mysterious webpage at the dental biomaterials group at King's College [1] indicates that it's a "light-cure hybrid composite". So, can anyone tell me what titan is, what light-cure hybrid composites more generally are, and how they compare to amalgam? I'm guessing composite means it's some sort of, er, composite, being a polymer resin with inorganic bits in, and that light-cure means it's set using light (i had one like that before); i don't know what hybrid means, or what the significance of these things is. My dentist also said that it has less mercury than amalgam; i'm aware that there is a potential health risk posed by mercury in amalgam fillings, and that it's a highly unclear and controversial topic. I'm also aware that it's a topic vigorously debated round here, and i am quite happy for people to choose not to comment on it! The above are probably pretty basic questions; sorry about that. Any and all input gratefully received. tom [1] http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/dentistry/resgroups/bbm/b/c/atozt.html  SignatureImagine the damage done if they'd neglected the satsuma Composite resin is commonly known as a "white filling" or "tooth- coloured filling". I haven't heard of Titan before, but hybrid composites are commonly used in both front and back teeth. The resin doesn't contain any mercury at all and looks much better, however it is certainly not more durable than amalgam. Done correctly, both materials theoretically have similar longevity, although on average long-term broad research tends to favour amalgam over composite for longevity purposes. Regards, George Tytin® is a brand name of a spherical amalgam alloy. Dispersalloy is about a dollar a capsule and Tytin is about a buck-fifty (single spills in 50/jar). Cost between the choices of amalgam is pretty small. If it's $10 more for a Tytin filling, you're getting screwed. I used it back in the early-mid 80's when I still used amalgam. It polishes well and doesn't corrode as bad as typical generic amalgams. But, since it corrodes slower, it leaks longer and cold sensitivity can last a few weeks more than with other alloys. JME, D I haven't heard of Titan before, but hybrid > composites are commonly used in both front and back teeth. > Regards, > George Also used Tytin® for the reasons you mentioned. Almost always used cavitec (?, it's been a while) and copal varnish under these. I find this statement confusing: >>My dentist also said that it has less mercury than amalgam; It's either composite or amalgam, not both. No Hg in composite. >Tytin® is a brand name of a spherical amalgam alloy. >Dispersalloy is about a dollar a capsule and Tytin is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> Regards, >> George Just for the heck of it, I tried to find out if there could be anything else besides amalgam. I tried to find different spellings of 'titan' relating to composites without success. D > Also used Tytin® for the reasons you mentioned. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's either composite or amalgam, not both. > No Hg in composite. >>Tytin® is a brand name of a spherical amalgam alloy. >>Dispersalloy is about a dollar a capsule and Tytin is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>JME, >>D > Just for the heck of it, I tried to find out if there could be > anything else besides amalgam. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >>JME, > >>D Thank you for very, this thread was really worth reading. NOw i got the idea www.healthtreatments.blogspot.com > Tytin® is a brand name of a spherical amalgam alloy. Ahaaaaa ... yes, that sounds like it. > Dispersalloy is about a dollar a capsule and Tytin is about a buck-fifty > (single spills in 50/jar). Cost between the choices of amalgam is > pretty small. If it's $10 more for a Tytin filling, you're getting > screwed. It's a dentist, of course i am :). Unfortunately, i'm a victim of the way British dentistry works: for reasons which are not clear, dentists aren't part of the NHS, they're private, but the NHS will partly fund some treatment. In my case, they'll pay for fillings with standard amalgam, for which i just have to pay about 50 pounds for the appointment to get all three teeth done; they won't pay for anything fancier at all, so to get tytin, i have to go private, which means i have to pay the whole cost myself, about 80 pounds a tooth. Everyone knows it's crazy, the public would like to see it all brought into the NHS, but no government is willing to put up the taxes to pay for it :(. > I used it back in the early-mid 80's when I still used amalgam. It > polishes well and doesn't corrode as bad as typical generic amalgams. That sounds like what my dentist said. Thanks to everyone who offered advice. I think i'm going to stick with standard NHS amalgam, and let my fellow taxpayers pick up the bill! tom Signatureø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø When the US goes to socialized medicine, it will be a grim day indeed. Actually, between the government and the $insurance companies$, the medical side is already screwed up, but I'm sure it will get worse. The British dental system sounds pretty bad as well. The fees paid to the dentist are so small that participating dooms the dentist to a drudge life with no control over the type of dentistry delivered and no chance of making enough money to make the extra education pay. That leads to patients being treated like cattle, cheap materials, and short cuts during the procedure. Can I deliver an occlusal amalgam in 10 minutes? Sure. But I can't take the time to deliver the local anesthetic slowly (and comfortably). I can't wait very long for it to work. I can't take time to add more anesthetic. I don't have time to place a rubber dam. I have to cut the prep in about 60 seconds. I don't have time to inspect the prep for detail or even complete decay removal. No time for sealant applications, just cram that amalgam in and give it a quick carve (probably carving a little extra off to ensure the bite won't be high, cause I don't have time to use the articulating paper 2 or three times to get the bite perfect). Then it's off to the next room to do it all over again. There is usually a way to do anything faster and cheaper, but you might want to be careful what you wish for. It's similar to telling a portrait artist, "Hey, I really can't afford $2,500 for an original painting. Just draw a couple of stick figures in black and white?" Sometimes you get what you pay for. Sometimes you get less. D >> I used it back in the early-mid 80's when I still used amalgam. It >> polishes well and doesn't corrode as bad as typical generic amalgams. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > tom > When the US goes to socialized medicine, it will be a grim day indeed. > Actually, between the government and the $insurance companies$, the > medical side is already screwed up, but I'm sure it will get worse. It's my understanding that the US per capita spending on healthcare is much higher than that of the UK, and yet treatment is worse. I'm told part of the problem is that because the limited amount of public money goes into treating emergencies, lots of problems which would be cheap if treated earlier are left to develop until they reach that threshold; extending public funding could actually thus reduce total costs. Plus, HMOs aren't exactly not-for-profit organisations. Unfortunately, it does seem likely that any expansion of public funding in the US will be in a piecemeal way, which means the savings won't be made, and it'll just mean more and more public funding. Still, if that means the budget for shooting up British tanks and bombing Afghan weddings has to be cut, there may be some positive health consequences after all! :) > The British dental system sounds pretty bad as well. The fees paid to > the dentist are so small that participating dooms the dentist to a > drudge life with no control over the type of dentistry delivered and no > chance of making enough money to make the extra education pay. Bear in mind that in the UK, university education is also (more or less) nationalised - the dentist didn't pay to go to dental school in the first place. Also, that dentists who do NHS work also do private work; indeed, i think the majority of any dentist's work is private. The NHS stuff is an annoying chore, but it doesn't stop British dentists being irritatingly well-off. You're right, though, it's a crappy system, and there are worse features besides; the general result is that dentists take on no or the minimum number of NHS patients, and most people get dentistry done privately. I only got an NHS dentist because there's one attatched to my university. > That leads to patients being treated like cattle, cheap materials, and > short cuts during the procedure. Can I deliver an occlusal amalgam in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > paper 2 or three times to get the bite perfect). Then it's off to the > next room to do it all over again. I don't see why being a private operator in a free market wouldn't have the same effects - there's always pressure to do things quickly and cheaply if it's a way of increasing your income. tom Signaturei'm prepared to do anything as long as someone else works out how to do it and gives me simple instructions... -- Sean >> When the US goes to socialized medicine, it will be a grim day indeed. >> Actually, between the government and the $insurance companies$, the >> medical side is already screwed up, but I'm sure it will get worse. > >It's my understanding that the US per capita spending on healthcare is >much higher than that of the UK, and yet treatment is worse. What a bucket of manure. > I'm told part >of the problem is that because the limited amount of public money goes >into treating emergencies, lots of problems which would be cheap if >treated earlier are left to develop until they reach that threshold; Does that explain why Canadians regularly cross the border for medical treatment either denied or posponed by their health care system? Much of the pressure on ERs is due to illegals flooding the system which they have no right to use. >extending public funding could actually thus reduce total costs. Horse hockey. >Plus, >HMOs aren't exactly not-for-profit organisations. True, but that's why I don't participate in any of them. Reduced fees for the same liability ? Nah, not for me. >Unfortunately, it does seem likely that any expansion of public funding in >the US will be in a piecemeal way, which means the savings won't be made, There wouldn't be any "savings" , Doh ! >and it'll just mean more and more public funding. Still, if that means the >budget for shooting up British tanks and bombing Afghan weddings has to be >cut, there may be some positive health consequences after all! :) Puleeze. There have already been terrorist attacks in the UK and you would rather fight them at home than over there ? Best wishes for your dental treatment but I strongly disagree with your Utopian political views. If they nationalize dental care in the US I will stay private or retire. >> The British dental system sounds pretty bad as well. The fees paid to >> the dentist are so small that participating dooms the dentist to a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >tom > Best wishes for your dental treatment but I strongly disagree with your > Utopian political views. Fair enough - my apologies for bringing them up, quite inappropriately, on this newsgroup. tom SignatureSCIIIIEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE!!! It was a related discussion, we just happened to have differing opinions,,,,,,,,,,, which is okay. Signature/ Amatus / > >> Best wishes for your dental treatment but I strongly disagree with your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > tom >> Best wishes for your dental treatment but I strongly disagree with your >> Utopian political views. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >tom No worries. We discuss such things here from time to time as it affect the practice of dentistry. And you didn't bring it up, believe it was Dartos. I don't expect that we will change each others minds, but we can discuss the issues civily if you wish. I've been married for over 30 years. Of course it's my fault! ;-) Steve > We discuss such things here from time to time as it affect the practice > of dentistry. And you didn't bring it up, believe it was Dartos. > > I don't expect that we will change each others minds, but we > can discuss the issues civily if you wish. > Does that explain why Canadians regularly cross the border > for medical treatment either denied or posponed by their health care > system? Some Canadians cross the border to get treatment in the USA because there are dozens of hospitals there which are truly the best in the world to get treatment at for their particular conditions. I would do the same. This is not an issue about wait time or denial of treatment. Very, very few procedures are "denied" as you describe it. They are, however, the ones that make the media and you hear about them. Most of these are invarably for experimental procedures or drugs, and are not offered in Canada. There are also some instances where a handful of people need a drug that is incredibly expensive and the government doesn't cover it because of the very low cost/benefit to the population as a whole....these are situations that clearly aren't acceptable, but do happen......but these are very, very uncommon. Typical examples are certain super-expensive chemo drugs for end-stage cancer situations that improve quality of life (not lengthen it) or certain drugs to treat rare genetic conditions (like Fabry's disease). Like I said, its unacceptable not to provide these drugs at no cost to patients, but it can happen. But, the overwhelming majority of Canadians who cross the border to get treatment do so to get a diagnostic test quickly, such as an MRI. They then take it back to their physicians here for the next, more expensive phase of work, which is almost always done in Canada, unless you are very wealthy. The cost for the test is cheap, the surgery or cancer treatment is not, so you get the government to pay for it here. John > Very, very few procedures are "denied" as you describe it. They are, > however, the ones that make the media and you hear about them. Most of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are very, very uncommon. > John I'm not trying to say you guys have the right idea, and I'm not trying to say you have the wrong idea. US health care seems to have lost ethics and sensibility. It's more about just making money. Money for the insco's, the hospitals, the drug companies, and the providers within the system. There are fates worse than death, and I don't expect the government to pay $300K to keep me alive for 6 months. Yet they work feverishly in many nursing homes to extend 'life' for no reason than for profit. TV ads for drugs? Ridiculous (unless you have stock in the company). JMO, Steve Fawks >TV ads for drugs? Ridiculous (unless you have stock in the company). > >JMO, >Steve Fawks One of my pet peeves. Medications should not be marketed directly to patients. > The cost for the test is cheap, the surgery or cancer treatment is >not, so you get the government to pay for it here. > >John Think you mean the *taxpayer*. The burden on your economy will eventually break the system. There is no such thing as a free lunch. > Think you mean the *taxpayer*. Of course I do. How else do governments get most of their money, unless you live in the Middle East. States with universal health care clearly have citizens that pay more taxes than those who don't. Is there anything wrong with paying more tax if you know you will get better service for it...problem is, most people are skeptical about their government doing this, and I am too to a certain extent. > The burden on your economy will eventually > break the system. Yes, you are right...the system has to change as our world and economies change. That's no reason to discount the system as a whole. John > There is no such thing as a free lunch. >> Think you mean the *taxpayer*. > >Of course I do. How else do governments get most of their money, unless you >live in the Middle East. States with universal health care clearly have >citizens that pay more taxes than those who don't. >Is there anything wrong >with paying more tax if you know you will get better service for >it...problem is, most people are skeptical about their government doing >this, and I am too to a certain extent. And therein lies the rub. Am not just skeptical; am completely convinced that the government cannot do anything better or more efficiently than the free market. >> The burden on your economy will eventually >> break the system. > >Yes, you are right...the system has to change as our world and economies >change. That's no reason to discount the system as a whole. Disagree. The 'system' as a whole is flawed because of the entirely flawed concept in the first place. >John > >> There is no such thing as a free lunch. >>> Think you mean the *taxpayer*. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Am not just skeptical; am completely convinced that the government > cannot do anything better or more efficiently than the free market. Really? Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World July 12, 2005 Authors: Gerard F. Anderson, Ph.D., Peter S. Hussey, Ph.D., Bianca K. Frogner et al. a.. view citation b.. e-mail this page While there is no question that the United States spends more than any other country on health care, observers and analysts often disagree about which factors are to blame and which strategies may slow the trend. However, a study published in Health Affairs, supported by The Commonwealth Fund, finds that higher prices for health services such as prescription drugs, hospital stays, and doctor visits, are the main reason for higher U.S. spending. The latest data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which compare trends among 30 industrialized countries, show that the U.S. spent $5,267 per capita on health care in 2002-53 percent more than any other country. >>>> Think you mean the *taxpayer*. >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >the U.S. spent $5,267 per capita on health care in 2002-53 percent more than >any other country. Conveniently ignores the fact that the US has one of the highest standards of living in the world. IOW we make more so we can spend more. BTW IMO socialism never works in the long run. Capitalism may be flawed in your view but if you remove the incentive to work harder ( i.e. more money) then who will be willing to do more than just the BAM (bare assed minimum) ? Don't you think you should enjoy a higher standard of living due to the time and effort you put in to become a dentist ? Or would you rather be paid like a high school drop-out ? It's about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. > Conveniently ignores the fact that the US has one of the highest standards > of living in the world. But not the highest, depsite all that is spent. Also, millions are still uninsured. > IOW we make more so we can spend more. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then who will be willing to do more than just the BAM > (bare assed minimum) ? Don't think that just because someone gets their medical care covered by the government that they do BAM and don't contribute to the tax pool. Sure, some are noncontributors, but almost everyone pays up. Don't equate universal health care to USSR communism. There is plenty of thriving capitalism in societies with universal health care. Bread is not rationed here. > Don't you think you should enjoy a higher standard of living > due to the time and effort you put in to become a dentist ? Of course I think so. And I do. I don't believe dentsitry should be grouped in with universal health care, in my opinion. Aside from those rare instances, dental issues do not kill you. I do believe you should be able to access medical care at any time regardless of ability to pay. > Or would you rather be paid like a high school drop-out ? Physicians here are very well paid. They can be paid using a variety of funding models, and can even receive money to hire auxiliaries, such as nurse practitioners, dieticians, etc, (all of which eventually increases their bottom line) and get money to improve their technologies. Its not a perfect system...even physicians will tell you that. > It's about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We have fundamental differences in our cultures, despite only living a few miles away. This is a topic we will unlikely ever agree on. However, I have enjoyed our exchange. John >> Conveniently ignores the fact that the US has one of the highest standards >> of living in the world. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > John As the resident lefty, I can say you shouldn't assume all U.S. dentists have the same views on health care delivery. I've been down this road with Newbie several times; we agree to disagree. Steve >> We have fundamental differences in our cultures, despite only living a few >> miles away. This is a topic we will unlikely ever agree on. However, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Steve Yep, and quite cordially at that ! S. Bornfeld, always a gentleman. <g> >We have fundamental differences in our cultures, despite only living a few >miles away. This is a topic we will unlikely ever agree on. Well we agree on that ! :-)) >However, I >have enjoyed our exchange. Same here. >John Tell that to Michael Moore. He thinks the medical system in Canada, UK and Cuba re better than the USA. * Show me a piano falling down a mine shaft and I'll show you A -flat miner* Signature/ Amatus / > > When the US goes to socialized medicine, it will be a grim day indeed. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> >> tom >Tell that to Michael Moore. He thinks the medical system in Canada, UK and >Cuba re better than the USA. We can only hope he goes to one of those locations for treatment when he has his inevitable MI or CVA. > In my case, they'll pay for fillings with standard amalgam, for >which i just have to pay about 50 pounds for the appointment to get all >three teeth done; they won't pay for anything fancier at all, so to get >tytin, i have to go private, which means i have to pay the whole cost >myself, about 80 pounds a tooth. http://www.ask.com/web?q=number+of+US%20Dollars+in+80+UK%20Pounds&qsrc=8 £80 ~= $160 For that you could get well done composites in my practice. Dental fees vary greatly by geographic region in the US. >> In my case, they'll pay for fillings with standard amalgam, for which i >> just have to pay about 50 pounds for the appointment to get all three [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dental fees vary greatly by geographic region in the US. And across the UK too - this is in central London, and so probably the priciest it's going to get :(. tom SignatureSCIIIIEEEEEENNNNNCNCCCCCE!!! > It's a dentist, of course i am :). Unfortunately, i'm a victim of the way > British dentistry works: for reasons which are not clear, dentists aren't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would like to see it all brought into the NHS, but no government is > willing to put up the taxes to pay for it :(. Even more taxes? We are already overtaxed in the UK and we get back very poor services for the taxes we pay. Any government has proven again and again that it's the most efficient organisation on the planet. If we paid more taxes, you can bet the money would vanish in fancy useless projects and spin consultants. But if you buy dentistry using your own money you tend to spend it much more wisely. Plus you get choice... you can visit a Mercedes dentist or a Mini Cooper dentist; it's up to you, you won't have to go to the dentist the state dictates. I wouldn't trust politicians with guarding my bike for 5 minutes,let alone my health! Regards, George Did he mean "Tytin". A brand of amalgam. Google that maybe. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.