Amalgam Complaints Need Psychiatric Treatment

Psychother Psychosom 2002 Jul-Aug;71(4):223-32
Psychological, allergic, and toxicological aspects of patients
with amalgam-related complaints.
Gottwald B, Kupfer J, Traenckner I, Ganss C, Gieler U.
Department of Medical Psychology, University of Giessen,
Germany.

Background: To deepen the understanding of the numerous
unspecific complaints which are related to the dental material
amalgam both in patients and physicians, an interdisciplinary
case-control study regarding toxicological, allergic, psychological
and psychiatric aspects was conducted. Forty patients with
amalgam-associated complaints were compared to a
well-matched group of 40 amalgam bearers without
complaints.

Methods: Patients and controls underwent a dental examination,
which included recording of the quantity, surface area and
quality of amalgam fillings, a determination of the mercury
load in blood and urine, an allergy examination including
patch testing with amalgam and a psychometric assessment with
questionnaires noting coping strategies (ABI-UMW-P),
interpersonal problems (Inventory of Interpersonal Problems)
and self-consciousness (SAM), the NEO Five-Factor Inventory,
Symptom Checklist-90-R, Beck Depression Inventory
and a screening instrument for somatoform disorders.

Results: Patients and controls did not differ with respect to mercury
concentrations in body fluids. Only 1 patient was found to have
a positive amalgam patch test; various other allergies could be
determined in 28% of patients (n = 11). Patients had higher levels
of psychic distress, a higher incidence of depression and
somatization disorders as well as different styles of coping
with anxiety compared to controls.

Conclusions: No indication for mercury intoxication or amalgam
allergy as a cause of the patients' complaints could be found.
The theory of amalgam-related complaints as an expression
of underlying psychic problems is supported. Treatment should
focus on somatization and changing coping and attribution styles.

This study is stupid!!!

1. The sample population is too small, 40.

2. Complaints are the physical, psychological, adaptability
determinants. An obvious thing I thought, a very weak link, if any to
mercury poisoning.

3. Some people suffered from flu but never made any complaints. On the
other hand, some do.

4. Similarly, some suffered from Mercury poison made complaints, whilst
others don't. You haven't prove anything.

5. Both group could have been poisoned by mercury in various level
irrespect of complaints.

6. Hence, those won't complaint are not a guarantee that they aren't
suffer the harm from mercury poisoning.

This study is stupid!!!

1. The sample population is too small, 40.

2. Complaints are the physical, psychological, adaptability
determinants. An obvious thing I thought, a very weak link, if any to
mercury poisoning.

3. Some people suffered from flu but never made any complaints. On the
other hand, some do.

4. Similarly, some suffered from Mercury poison made complaints, whilst
others don't. You haven't prove anything.

5. Both group could have been poisoned by mercury in various level
irrespect of complaints.

6. Hence, those won't complaint are not a guarantee that they aren't
suffer the harm from mercury poisoning.

This study is stupid!!!

1. The sample population is too small, 40.

2. Complaints are the physical, psychological, adaptability
determinants. An obvious thing I thought, a very weak link, if any to
mercury poisoning.

3. Some people suffered from flu but never made any complaints. On the
other hand, some do.

4. Similarly, some suffered from Mercury poison made complaints, whilst
others don't. You haven't prove anything.

5. Both group could have been poisoned by mercury in various level
irrespect of complaints.

6. Hence, those won't complaint are not a guarantee that they aren't
suffer the harm from mercury poisoning.