Connie Yoon's List: Final Annotated Sources

• • 2. USE - Since the ADA is a well-known organization in the dentistry community, I can cite their publications and research in order to build ethos and use authority in my paper.
• • 3. CONNECTION - On the internet, there are a lot of conflicting studies from different countries and publications. However, the ADA selects a few of the most trustworthy, reliable research that have been released in recent years and publishes it on their website. This not only filters out unreliable sources, but also provides a chronological list of important studies made on amalgam. Also, this statement shows how the most prominent organizations all stand by the conclusion that amalgam is safe, despite repeated trials and accusations over the past decade. It also shows the opinions held by credible professionals, rather than just those of the media. Thus, this source will support my argument that speculation against amalgam is unfounded and not supported by qualified professionals.
• • 1. SUMMARY - The American Dental Association (ADA), a national organization that regulates dental practices in the US, published this statement in order to clarify the stance of amalgam. They list several scientific studies, including their own, that support the use of amalgam. In the end, they conclude that not only is amalgam safe, but is also affordable and durable to use as dental filling. It was last revised in 2009, which was the most recent date that the FDA had officially declared amalgam safe for dental practice. The ADA also published their own review evaluating the last five years of amalgam use, and reaffirms that it is a viable material.

1 more annotation...

• • 1. SUMMARY - In this comic, a woman and a man are talking about the use of mercury. The woman believes that mercury is "retrograde" and instead uses other ingredients to "counteract the astral chaos." The man questions her pseudo-science in a sarcastic manner and suggests that she refer to a doctor. However, she insists that "doctors don't know anything" and continues to carry out with her misconceptions of mercury. It was published on December 9, 2007.
• • 2. USE - The cartoon shows how average citizens, uneducated in mercury use, can easily be misguided into believing erroneous and unproven beliefs.
• • 3. CONNECTION - In many protests against amalgam, opponents claim that mercury itself is a toxic material that shouldn't be used in the first place. However, what most people don't know is that there are different types of mercury. Elemental mercury used in amalgam is deemed safe by both the FDA and ADA, while the more well-known variant called methyl mercury is extremely toxic. These two types of mercury are often confused for one another. Also, people often dismiss mercury as an outdated method merely because it has been around for longer, and ignore the fact that new is not necessarily better. Here, the woman neglects mercury use for such impractical reasons, and the artist of the comic criticizes her inability to use an accurate, scientific approach. This situation supports the argument that backlash against amalgam often results from a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding.

1 more annotation...

• • 1. SUMMARY - Dr. Thomas D. Larson, D.D.S., M.S.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, and he discusses marginal fit in the article "The Clinical Significance of Marginal Fit." This article was published by the Minnesota Dental Association in the January-Feburary 2012 edition of the Northwest Dentistry journal, and is mainly geared toward the dental community in the US. The scientific journal analyzes the different effects of dental materials on marginal fit, which determines how well a tooth filling suits the patient. Several data tables are presented along with visual evidence, which are used as direct evidence to demonstrate the various performances of dental fillings, including amalgam. In the end, the article concludes that amalgam, along with other restorative materials, vary depending on how they are applied. However, amalgam does appear to have a notable survival rate compared to other composites, giving extra years to its lifespan.
• • 2. USE - I will use the data presented in this scientific article to present raw evidence that compares amalgam's performance against other fillings.
•  The survival times are more than 14.6 years for crowns, 12.8 years for amalgam restorations, and 7.8 years for composite restorations.¹⁸

  • 3. CONNECTION - As this statement suggests, complete restorations using amalgam last much longer than ordinary composites do. Though this is a fact that is rarely disputed, this journal provides valuable graphs and data tables that also show the survival rates of different dental fillings. This allows the readers to see the results themselves instead of just relying on second hand observations. The statistics (show in the graphs that are scattered throughout the article) also give direct comparisons between amalgam and composites in terms of longevity and strength. Numerical data will establish logos as well as ethos by citing results from a scientific journal. This evidence will be used to support my argument that one of amalgam's main advantage is longevity, which gives patients a reliable and affordable choice in dental healthcare.

1 more annotation...

• • 1. SUMMARY - This article, published on April 29, 2011 by the Colgate Oral and Dental Health Resource Center, addresses common questions that the general public have regarding amalgam practice. Reviewed by the Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, the information presented here reassures concerned clients about the safety of amalgam by integrating scientific evidence. Overall, the tone is objective and also gives clients the option to use alternatives to amalgam for those who have medical problems. But the speaker asserts that amalgam is just as safe and, in some cases, better to use than alternatives. By answering people's concerns in a simple FAQ format, the article is designed for the common people to navigate and learn easily about amalgam.
• • 2. USE - I am going to use this article in my counterargument, which will clarify why amalgam is not as dangerous as it seems.
• Dentists use other materials to restore teeth. These include composite resin, porcelain and gold. Amalgam is stronger than composite resin. This is a tooth-colored material. Amalgam also and requires less time in the dentist's chair. Because it wears faster than amalgam, composite resin can't be used in every situation.

  • 3. CONNECTION - People claim that amalgam should be banned in favor of other alternatives, such as composite resin. However, composite resin is not ideal in all situations, and amalgam is often used by dentists because it lasts longer. In fact, amalgam is stronger than composite resin, which supports my argument that amalgam should not be banned when it can presents strong advantages over composites. These advantages are difficult to find in other composites that are just as affordable as amalgam, and I will use this to point out that it is unfair for both dentists and clients to deprive them of amalgam. In addition, I will use this passage to clarify the differences between amalgam and composites, which will help the readers understand the context better.

1 more annotation...

• • 2. USE - I am using this article to dispel misconceptions about mercury use in amalgam.
• • 3. CONNECTION - Mercury is notorious for its toxic characteristics, and people know well to steer away from it. However, there are two types of mercury: Methylmercury and elemental mercury. While both types of mercury present threats to people's health, elemental mercury is far less toxic than methyl mercury. Amalgam only uses elemental mercury, making it unlikely for people to get poisoned through amalgam exposure. I will use this to counter arguments that claim amalgam's mercury components are dangerous by clarifying how there are different types of mercury. Amalgam may use mercury, but it's not the type of mercury that presents significant threats.
• • 1. SUMMARY - This is a review of mercury, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on February 2, 2012. It covers the dangers of mercury exposure to educate how people in the U.S. can take measures to protect themselves from high mercury concentrations. The article also discusses the types of mercury that exist, and also differentiate between various types of mercury to clarify which ones are toxic and which ones are not. One of the potential dangers includes dental amalgam, in which the EPA refers to FDA regulations. The EPA also talks about how the environment is affected by mercury emissions, including pollution caused by amalgam residue.

1 more annotation...