|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,178
Master Elite Member
|
I should have realised what it meant! lol.
No, no hidden source of exposure to mercury that I know of. Have had panoramic xrays and removal of composites replaced with cerec, during which the dentist did find a bit of remaining amalgam under I think one top tooth.
Cavitations? Yes, apparently so.
One top doctor in new zealand dealing in toxicity discovered on his EAV machine (voll) dead pulp/wet gangrene as he called it on the lower left side of my mouth (where a wisdom tooh had been removed in 2004). Interestingly enough it was when that very side had been worked on that my health issues got far worse (even though I already had the virus).
That's when I stopped healing from mercury. But no xray or even cavitat has shown a problem in that area when a biologic dentist checked. It does however, show old cavitations that have been there for many years in the top. But it is odd that I never had a problem or symptoms following those old extractions until the lower left side was done....and that's when all hell broke loose, you see the confusion.
I also had a composite changed with another composite near the sametime as the extraction and done on the same side, so I'm not sure which dental work is responsible. (this is before the cerec ones were done). This was in 2004. The dentist and oral surgeon both used a LOT of local aneasthetic to do the work because they could not get me numb. It's possible damage may have been done in that area and perhaps there is a source of dead pulp/gangrene somewhere there because of the dental work done. The local anaesthetics also contained vaso constrictors, which block blood supply and extend numbness apparently. Not only do I find them ineffective at doing so, but they apparently can contribute to cavitations and deadening of teeth.
However, panoramic xray does not show a clear problem in that area. It is a mystery.
|
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
Bex, an article you should read
|
JK98
|
02/28/09 06:32 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/01/09 04:06 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
jammes
|
03/01/09 08:33 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/01/09 09:47 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
jammes
|
03/01/09 04:37 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/01/09 05:47 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
jammes
|
03/01/09 07:11 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/01/09 08:54 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
gdawson6
|
03/01/09 09:08 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/01/09 09:25 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
gdawson6
|
03/01/09 09:58 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
jammes
|
03/01/09 11:14 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
JK98
|
03/02/09 02:39 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
JK98
|
03/02/09 03:41 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/02/09 04:00 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
jammes
|
03/02/09 10:53 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/02/09 11:02 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
jammes
|
03/02/09 11:41 AM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/02/09 12:05 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
jammes
|
03/01/09 09:56 PM
|
Re: Bex, an article you should read
|
Bex
|
03/02/09 03:51 AM
|
|
|
|