February 24, 2010

Dear Representative:
Legislation has been introduced, H.R. 4615, the Consumers Have Options for Molar Protection
Act, which is based on the premise that dentists neither know nor discuss the comparative risks
and benefits of using certain materials to repair or restore damaged teeth.
As this view is simply not true, the American Dental Association (ADA), which represents more
than 157,000 dentists, strongly opposes this legislation and asks that you not support it.
Dentists are, first and foremost, responsible for the oral health care of their patients and they
take that responsibility very seriously. On average, dentists study and train more than six years
beyond a four-year college degree to become a doctor of oral health. They must then pass
rigorous national written examination and state or regional clinical licensing exams in order to
practice. As a condition of licensure, they must meet continuing education requirements for the
remainder of their careers, to keep up to date on the latest scientific and clinical developments.
In consultation with their patients, dentists draw on this experience to chart the most effective
course of treatment that will ensure restored function and overall oral health. H.R. 4615 would
do harm to this relationship not only by interjecting the government into the middle of it, but also
by raising an unfounded fear in patients that may prevent them from seeking needed and
necessary care.
While H.R. 4615 raises the specter of mercury in dental amalgam, the bill fails to recognize
scientific evidence that dental amalgam is safe. On July 28, 2009, the FDA issued a final rule
that categorized dental amalgam as a Class II medical device, which is the same class as gold
and tooth-colored composite fillings. After reviewing more than 200 scientific studies, the FDAs
decision confirms the broadly accepted position that dental amalgam is safe and has not
caused harm to patients.
Dental amalgam is often times the best treatment option available to a dentist for restorative
work, offering a number of benefits that other restorative materials do not. Its use depends on
changing circumstances that are best observed and reacted to by a dentist, acting in the best
interests of his or her patients health. Interjecting a one-size-fits-all government document
about the dangers of mercury will do harm to that work and the dentist-patient relationship it is
built on.
We ask you to oppose H.R. 4615.
Sincerely,
/s/

/s/

Ronald L. Tankersley, D.D.S.

President

Kathleen T. OLoughlin, D.M.D., M.P.H.

Executive Director

RLT:KTO:mb
Enclosure