The Austrian company Ogussa manufactures an alloy called Starfill NG2. This alloy is intended for use by dentists in mixing solid particles of it together with liquid mercury to form a dental amalgam.
Starfill NG2 is not the amalgam. It is an alloy which must be mixed with liquid mercury in order to form the amalgam.
The composition of the alloy Starfill NG2 is as follows:
Ag - 70% Cu - 15% Hg - 3% Sn - 12%
Since it contains 3% mercury, Starfill NG2 can be accurately described as "an alloy of mercury with other metals".
However, as we have already established, it is NOT an amalgam.
Even dentists (in fact, especially dentists) will recognise that you cannot make an amalgam with only 3% mercury.
Therefore, logically, it must be concluded that "an alloy of mercury with other metals" is NOT an adequate definition of an amalgam.
In spite of this, it appears that many dentists, as well as a significant number of editors of various types of dictionary, have been misled into believing that an accurate definition of an amalgam is ""an alloy of mercury with other metals".
In fact this definition is inaccurate on two counts.
Firstly, an amalgam is not an alloy. True metallic alloys are formed by heating ALL of the constituent metals to a temperature which is higher than the melting point of each of them. The molten metals are mixed together thoroughly and then allowed to solidify by cooling at a controlled rate. That's how the "alloy of mercury with other metals" called Starfill NG2 is produced.
In contrast, an amalgam is formed by mixing bits of a solid metal, or solid metal alloy, together with a liquid metal at a temperature which is below the melting point of the solid component.
Secondly, it is perfectly possible to form an amalgam in which the amalgamating agent is a liquid metal other than mercury, so that the resulting amalgam does not have any mercury in it at all.
Do we have any examples of such amalgams?
Well of course we do. If you go to:
There is NO MERCURY in these amalgams.
Amalgams can also be formed by using indium as the liquid metal amalgamating agent. There is NO MERCury in these amalgams either.
And therefore the widely supported definition of an amalgam which is given as "an alloy of mercury with other metals" is at best inadequate, and at worst downright wrong.
So I would suggest that any dozy dim-witted dunce in the dental pofession who has been fooled into believing this definition should stop believing it, and stop using it, now.
And they should also recognise that because there are different types of amalgams, formed by using different liquid metal amalgamating agents, then it makes perfect linguistic, scientific and logical sense to differentiate between them by referring to them as gallium amalgams, indium amalgams and MERCURY AMALGAMS, etc.
And those dozy dim-witted dunces in the dental pofession who are in the habit of telling people that the term "mercury amalgam" is a pleonasm should realise that the teachers who taught them to believe this in dental school were confused and ignorant, and they have simply passed on their confusion and ignorance to you.
(When I use the term "mercury amalgam" it doesn't mean that I think that I can form an amalgam by mixing liquid mercury with liquid mercury - it means I'm referring to an amalgam formed using liquid mercury rather than liquid gallium, or liquid indium, etc. - by the way, I'm sure that this is all very obvious to you guys at sci.materials - It's the DDS dopes at sci.med.dentistry who appear to have difficulty in accepting that what they were taught in dental school was garbage.)
However, this is not simply an argument about semantics.
The reason why it is important to distinguish between amalgams and an alloys is because these are two distict types of mixtures of metals. When you mix liquid mercury together with a powdered metal alloy at room temperature what you end up with is a solid which has a much more inhomogeneous microstructure than any true alloy has. A large proportion of that microstructure consists of solid cores of unreacted alloy which has not fused with any mercury at all, see:
And, because of its significantly different microstructure, you might also expect such a material to differ from a true alloy in its electrical, electromagnetic and thermoelectric behaviour (that's "behavior" to Americans).
In 2007 a team of Czech researchers set out to measure the magnetic susceptibility and electrical resistivity of a range of metallic dental materials (a bit late in the day don't you think?).
You can read their report at:
These materials are not amalgams. They are the alloys used to form dental amalgams by mixing them with liquid mercury. And as a matter of fact it is not obvious from the report whether it was in fact amalgams or just samples of the alloys that were measured in the tests. (You would expect the physical properties of an amalgam to vary significantly from point to point within the material according to the inhomogeneous nature of the material's microstructure. It appears that the researchers made no attempt to take account of this variation in their study. Also - there is no mention anywhere of the % Hg content of the "amalgams" that they measured. Did they simply receive samples of the alloys from the manufacturers - and their results were from measurements of the alloys and not representative of the properties of amalgams at all? I'm trying to find out and I'll report later.)
Anyway the case is made pretty clearly. An amalgam is not an alloy.
If anyone has any opinions on the Czech study I'd be interested to hear them. (Remember that you wouldn't be able to repeat this study without knowing what percentages of Hg were used in the "Amalgams" tested.
Keith P Walsh.
PS, I have noticed in recent years that attempts have been made to develop amalgams ustilising liquid metal amalgamating agents other than mercury (e.g. gallium) for use in dentistry. I also gather that these attempts are generally inspired by the perception that mercury should not be used in dental materials because of its toxic properties. My own belief is that any "gallium amalgam" intended for use in dentistry would, as a newly developed dental material, have to satisfy rigorous testing for its physical properties to satisfy public bodies, such as the US FDA, that it is acceptable from the point of view of bio-compatibility. And, presuming that such tests would include a thorough examination of its electrical, electromagnetic and thermoelectric behaviour, it would be unlikely to gain the required approval. The principal reasons why the electrical, electromagnetic and thermoelectric properties of mercury amalgams have never been subjected to similar scrutiny are because, firstly, when mercury amalgams were first developed for use in restorative dentistry the significance of these properties was not as well recognised as it is today; and, secondly, in the case of mercury amalgams there appears to apply a wholly unscientific principle that, because they have been used for so long in dentistry now, if they were causing any significant problem it would have been widely recognised (remember that the widespread adoption of mercury amalgams for use in restorative dentistry was quickly followed by the rise to prominence of psychiatric "medicine" in our societies, and at present there is insufficient scientific evidence to support any assertion that the two are not significantly linked by the relationship of cause and effect.)