Plastics / resins in Invisalign - are they really safe?
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:18 pm
I had to discontinue Invisalign treatment because I AM SURE that I had toxic sensitivity to the plastics in aligners. I got to the point several times where I was having trouble getting a deep breath and my throat was swelling up. Wanting the treatment so bad, I kept calling Invisalign and my ortho who kept acting like I was crazy. When I finally saw an allergy specialist and my internist they said STOP and this could be a toxic sensitivity or allergy. If you try to find any information about this type of sensitivity to Invisalign
1 - invisalign customer support will deny that this has ever been reported however they will send you an MSDS (material safety data sheet) with the chemical breakdown of what is in the aligner (not a big help unless you're a chemist)
2 - very indepth search of the FDA (food & drug administration) shows that there have been reported cases of severe reactions where Invisalign caused emergency room visits, problems breathing and discontinued treatment
When I finally told my ortho, I'm done, finished, no more and I don't care what you and Invisalign say, Invisalign working with the ortho provided aligners made with 2 other types of materials - so something tells me they had heard of this before.
Also, if you review their annual report you will see a short note about "product liability" .... from a recent Invisalign 10K ... "Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims, and we may incur substantial expenses if we are subject to product liability claims or litigation. Medical devices involve an inherent risk of product liability claims and associated adverse publicity. We may be held liable if any product we develop or any product that uses or incorporates any of our technologies causes injury or is otherwise found unsuitable. "
So most orthos are saying that Invisalign may be safer than metals which may cause allergies. However, I am wondering if we are really getting the full picture about the resins used. Every 2 weeks, a new dose of resins seeping in through your gums 22 hours a days ... hmmm ...
from Northern Californians against plastic website ... "The ubiquitous presence of plastics is already killing us. Exactly "how" is never going to be completely isolated. Eighty per cent of cancers are environmentally derived. When we wonder where the epidemic of cancer is coming from, can we say that plastics gave Ms. Jane Doe cancer? Perhaps, but cancer is coming from not only plastics and their associated toxins as well as from radiation sources, smog, the modern chemically tainted diet, household and workplace chemicals, etc. To say cancer is "genetic" is to put the onus on our intrinsic humanity, so as to ignore the 80% environmental-source principle.
The absolute proof that a case of cancer came from a particular cause or chemical is usually lacking, except in the case of certain rare cancers from identifiable chemicals. Or, a massive exposure can be blamed for specific cancers when it assaults a community such as Union Carbide's mass poisoning of Bhopal, India. The lack of exact, causal evidence clearly pointing to plastics, for example, when considering cancer, is most convenient for the status quo. This points up the faulty approach of focusing on a certain chemical villain, or set of bad chemicals -- as if the rest are safe and the technocratic bureaucracy will save us. The public is encouraged by industry to think a certain cancer is caused by overexposure to a certain chemical not yet regulated, so corporate profits can roll along in the context of technological progress that the public has been trained not to question. In reality, thousands of marketed chemicals and their combinations have not been tested to see if they are harmful.
Whether or not scientists can measure a substance should not be the point. What we don't see or detect can be lethal enough. Migration and release of plastics' chemicals into our food, water and skin is of little interest to the government and its corporate friends. But certain principles won't go away:. For example, polymerizing does not perfectly bind the petroleum chemicals together, especially when substances such as carcinogenic plasticizers are added after polymerization. Did you think that cute "rubber" duckie in the bath tub was harmless? Think again."
I am now wearing ceramic / metal braces for about a week - not one allergy or toxic symptom - not as convenient as invisalign and definitely more visible but I feel 100% better. I am not on a mission to discredit Invisalign but I don't believe they are providing the market, orthodontists or patients are getting the full story including risks from Invisalign to make an informed decision. that is all I am asking.
1 - invisalign customer support will deny that this has ever been reported however they will send you an MSDS (material safety data sheet) with the chemical breakdown of what is in the aligner (not a big help unless you're a chemist)
2 - very indepth search of the FDA (food & drug administration) shows that there have been reported cases of severe reactions where Invisalign caused emergency room visits, problems breathing and discontinued treatment
When I finally told my ortho, I'm done, finished, no more and I don't care what you and Invisalign say, Invisalign working with the ortho provided aligners made with 2 other types of materials - so something tells me they had heard of this before.
Also, if you review their annual report you will see a short note about "product liability" .... from a recent Invisalign 10K ... "Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims, and we may incur substantial expenses if we are subject to product liability claims or litigation. Medical devices involve an inherent risk of product liability claims and associated adverse publicity. We may be held liable if any product we develop or any product that uses or incorporates any of our technologies causes injury or is otherwise found unsuitable. "
So most orthos are saying that Invisalign may be safer than metals which may cause allergies. However, I am wondering if we are really getting the full picture about the resins used. Every 2 weeks, a new dose of resins seeping in through your gums 22 hours a days ... hmmm ...
from Northern Californians against plastic website ... "The ubiquitous presence of plastics is already killing us. Exactly "how" is never going to be completely isolated. Eighty per cent of cancers are environmentally derived. When we wonder where the epidemic of cancer is coming from, can we say that plastics gave Ms. Jane Doe cancer? Perhaps, but cancer is coming from not only plastics and their associated toxins as well as from radiation sources, smog, the modern chemically tainted diet, household and workplace chemicals, etc. To say cancer is "genetic" is to put the onus on our intrinsic humanity, so as to ignore the 80% environmental-source principle.
The absolute proof that a case of cancer came from a particular cause or chemical is usually lacking, except in the case of certain rare cancers from identifiable chemicals. Or, a massive exposure can be blamed for specific cancers when it assaults a community such as Union Carbide's mass poisoning of Bhopal, India. The lack of exact, causal evidence clearly pointing to plastics, for example, when considering cancer, is most convenient for the status quo. This points up the faulty approach of focusing on a certain chemical villain, or set of bad chemicals -- as if the rest are safe and the technocratic bureaucracy will save us. The public is encouraged by industry to think a certain cancer is caused by overexposure to a certain chemical not yet regulated, so corporate profits can roll along in the context of technological progress that the public has been trained not to question. In reality, thousands of marketed chemicals and their combinations have not been tested to see if they are harmful.
Whether or not scientists can measure a substance should not be the point. What we don't see or detect can be lethal enough. Migration and release of plastics' chemicals into our food, water and skin is of little interest to the government and its corporate friends. But certain principles won't go away:. For example, polymerizing does not perfectly bind the petroleum chemicals together, especially when substances such as carcinogenic plasticizers are added after polymerization. Did you think that cute "rubber" duckie in the bath tub was harmless? Think again."
I am now wearing ceramic / metal braces for about a week - not one allergy or toxic symptom - not as convenient as invisalign and definitely more visible but I feel 100% better. I am not on a mission to discredit Invisalign but I don't believe they are providing the market, orthodontists or patients are getting the full story including risks from Invisalign to make an informed decision. that is all I am asking.