AS far as I am aware, except for food supplements and vitamins, there is no chemical compound or drug that we take that has no side effect. Of course, I am assuming that these are taken in their prescribed doses.

More than 90 per cent of the times that someone has dental treatment, the attending dentist uses a drug or material characteristic to dentistry, which, obviously, would have some side effect, no matter how insignificant.
So, what are the side effects of dental materials? Since these substances are not generally known to the public, how can one make a biological evaluation of them? This is especially true for Guyana, where 100 per cent of the dental materials used are imported.
For many years, the dental profession worked mainly with rather inert (stable) materials that had a limited contact with living tissue (except dentures). The opportunity for local and systemic complications was, therefore, minimal. Now, dental materials and devices are being treated more like drugs, and have to meet the safety and efficacy requirements of drugs and medical devices.
Some years ago, the government of Sweden banned amalgam (silver) fillings. This was after the whole world had been using it for nearly two centuries, and there had never been incontrovertible evidence of any deleterious effect.
We in Guyana are fortunate, in the sense that we are relatively protected by restrictions existent for the manufacture of dental materials in some countries, like the United States and Britain. These countries have extremely stringent laws which govern the manufacture of food, drug and medical implements. In addition, litigation is a popular part of their culture.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for dental materials originating in many Third World countries, where the standardization system does not require protracted testing before the laboratories can release the materials on the market. Also, if an agency, such as a government, should make a drug, and that same agency should certify its use by the public, then the incestuous nature of that arrangement can justifiably be deemed dubious.
Since every single dental drug and material is imported, and because local legislation at the present time does not regulate, in any way, the use of any of these substances, dentists should be careful about their utilization.
Certain dental materials, such as composite resin (used for anterior teeth fillings), are chemically active compounds, and may have a detrimental effect on the pulp. Amalgam (silver filling material), because of its mercury content, and impression materials, because of their former lead content, also stimulated considerable interest.
Endodontic (root canal) therapy involves the most dangerous drugs in dentistry; the majority of the medications used are very poisonous. The procedures require canal obtrusion with drugs and materials that remain in constant contact with living tissues.
The most common drug used in dentistry is lidocaine, which is used as a local anesthetic, mainly for extractions. The active ingredient is chemically similar to the illicit drug, cocaine, but the part of the molecule which is toxic and causes addiction was removed.
Cocaine was actually discovered by the Incas, an indigenous tribe of South America, who used this extract from the coca plant to numb wounds on the skin. However, it was not until 1884 that Dr. Carl Koller used cocaine medicinally as the first local anesthetic. It is interesting to note that even after well over a century, in which a weak solution of cocaine ceased to be used for anesthetic, Guyanese remain the only people that I know who refer to dental anesthetic as “cocaine”.
Despite the fact that we do not manufacture dental materials and drugs, there is need to legislate and regulate their use. Biocompatibility is the key word.
The history of the development of controls, standards and guidelines began almost 500 years ago, and is detailed, in a chronological fashion, up to the present time. An outline of the latest revised draft of the International document (ISO Technical Report No. 7405), completed recently for the harmonization of human standards within the EC, has been presented. The Bureau of Standards needs to include dental materials in its list of controlled drugs, because “dental quacks” have a field day in importing sub-standard materials from questionable sources. In fact, a way to eliminate these illegal practitioners is to restrict the availability of dental material, by making its possession illegal for persons not licensed to practise dentistry.
No amount of experimental study can guarantee absolute safety for any substance. However, toxicological investigations provide data from which reasonable projections and predictions can be made about the conditions under which the product can be safely used.
In today’s world, in which the development of a country is measured by how serious it views standards, it would be a boost in this context for the authorities to examine this question.