Scientists Likely Found Way to Grow New Teeth for Patients(sciencetimes.com)
sciencetimes.com
Scientists Likely Found Way to Grow New Teeth for Patients
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24252/20191111/scientists-likely-found-way-to-grow-new-teeth-for-patients.htm
13 comments
Pfft that's nothing.
When I had testicular cancer, they found an entire molar in that tumor.
Apparently I had a type of cancer that just spontaneously grows parts of you inside it. I am ashamed to say that I forgot the name of this type of cancer.
When I had testicular cancer, they found an entire molar in that tumor.
Apparently I had a type of cancer that just spontaneously grows parts of you inside it. I am ashamed to say that I forgot the name of this type of cancer.
That's amazing. Put it under your pillow and let us know what the tooth fairy thinks of that little gem.
Teratoma[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
So it's not at all far-fetched to grow new teeth for humans then. Just need to get it working in the right place.
It's self-evident that humans can grow teeth, since we almost all have them, and many women grow extra sets in their uteruses. The devil is in the details of growing them on demand where desired.
As others pointed out, the statement "many women grow extra sets in their uteruses" is misleading at best.
The kind interpretation is that you are thinking of Teratoma (mentioned above). The less kind is that you are thinking of that cheesy black-comedy horror movie from the 2000s.
The kind interpretation is that you are thinking of Teratoma (mentioned above). The less kind is that you are thinking of that cheesy black-comedy horror movie from the 2000s.
> many women grow extra sets in their uteruses
What.
What.
It's technically correct, but they tend to come attached to a baby :)
That can't be right; babies are not usually born with teeth.
Adult teeth start forming at 20 weeks in the womb. Babies are born with two full sets of teeth, they're just not quite finished yet and are buried under the gums and in the jaw bone. There are images of child skulls with the front of the bone removed to show all of the teeth packed into the bone underneath. It's actually pretty unsettling.
Well, yes and no. No, in that babies aren't born with exposed teeth in their mouth. Yes, in that babies have two sets of teeth in their skull when born.
Got the same reaction. Found this: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2013/03/04/pu...
Well that holds even more wat material.
> [Māui] proposes to kill Hine-nui-te-pō by entering her vagina and exiting through her mouth whilst she is sleeping
> [Māui] proposes to kill Hine-nui-te-pō by entering her vagina and exiting through her mouth whilst she is sleeping
Another reference to teratomas, which are often found during ultrasounds during pregnancy[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma
It's a pregnancy reference. I hope.
[deleted]
Women are amazing! They’re basically people factories.
my father had 3 sets of teeth
Root of the word means "monster", very appropiate. I guess it got that name because it was associated malformed fetuses since it appeared often in ovaries.
Teratoma?
[deleted]
interesting that aligns with some of the theories brought up in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k
The idea that our cells forget what they are supposed to be.
The idea that our cells forget what they are supposed to be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
Did you get to keep the molar?
Wow. I had heard of teratomic tumors growing hair or teeth in women around the ovaries, but never in men.
[deleted]
"Scientists Have Discovered a Drug That Fixes Cavities and Regrows Teeth"
https://futurism.com/neoscope/scientists-have-discovered-thi...
Tideglusib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tideglusib
Tideglusib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tideglusib
> Tooth repair mechanisms that promotes dentine reinforcement of a sponge structure until the sponge biodegrades, leaving a solid dentine structure. In 2016, the results of animal studies were reported in which 0.14 mm holes in mouse teeth were permanently filled.
Very interesting mechanism.
Very interesting mechanism.
GSK3 inhibitors are interesting, but we don't understand much the subtypes that are likely to exist: "GSK-3 appears to both promote and inhibit apoptosis, and this regulation varies depending on the specific molecular and cellular context."
Still, I believe better GSK3i will find a role in autologous bone-marrow grafting therapies to fight senescence: with TERC/TERT overexpression (the opposite of DeGrey WILT ideas) to send new stem cells to the tissues - just like how you can find the donors chromosomes in most tissues of grafted patient.
Still, I believe better GSK3i will find a role in autologous bone-marrow grafting therapies to fight senescence: with TERC/TERT overexpression (the opposite of DeGrey WILT ideas) to send new stem cells to the tissues - just like how you can find the donors chromosomes in most tissues of grafted patient.
Every couple years an article like this comes out, yet nothing of substance actually happens.
Maybe when the hens grow teeth, as the french say we'll be able to do that in humans too.
Maybe when the hens grow teeth, as the french say we'll be able to do that in humans too.
This.
Once I was watching the news, probably back in the 70s - the reporter was Peter Jennings, and he saying that the Soviets had created an aquatic chicken with gills instead of lungs. Never any follow up, never any mention of it again. I’ve always wondered if the people at ABC News were just incredibly gullible, or if the government swooped in to suppress the story.
What's more plausible, the Soviets actually succeeded at such a complex project, and the US government suppressed it so effectively that after the collapse of the Soviet Union there was no evidence left whatsoever.
...or the whole thing was just propaganda in the first place (either Soviet to try claim weird science skills, or US to try claim the Soviets are crazy)?
...or the whole thing was just propaganda in the first place (either Soviet to try claim weird science skills, or US to try claim the Soviets are crazy)?
Every couple years an article like this comes out, yet nothing of substance actually happens.
Maybe if they combine this latest greatest teeth growing technology with the latest greatest new battery technology, they'd be able to get it to market.
Maybe if they combine this latest greatest teeth growing technology with the latest greatest new battery technology, they'd be able to get it to market.
These kinds of stories, mostly about new teeth coatings to end cavities, are nearly as common as new battery technology vaporware.
I already know of at least one company that 3D bioprints custom replacement teeth for patients rather than use implants.
It’s already got its patents granted and is transitioning from prototypes to production units, IIRC.
It’s already got its patents granted and is transitioning from prototypes to production units, IIRC.
https://www.dentistryiq.com/products/article/16365674/natura...
So the bioprinting is an alternative means to construct a replicate tooth (as opposed to CNC milling).
Replicate teeth can be used as a less invasive/quicker healing alternative to implants under some conditions:
https://www.replicatetooth.com/for-patients/
"The REPLICATE System can only be used if the root of the original tooth is still in place. Also your dentist will need to evaluate if the surrounding bone structure is healthy enough to accept a REPLICATE Tooth."
So the bioprinting is an alternative means to construct a replicate tooth (as opposed to CNC milling).
Replicate teeth can be used as a less invasive/quicker healing alternative to implants under some conditions:
https://www.replicatetooth.com/for-patients/
"The REPLICATE System can only be used if the root of the original tooth is still in place. Also your dentist will need to evaluate if the surrounding bone structure is healthy enough to accept a REPLICATE Tooth."
After digging on their site, you can find the part that says these “replicate teeth” are “medical grade” titanium. They aren’t printing with cells or something. “Bio-printing” is just a marketing term, and a misleading one at that.
Thanks for pointing it... I fell for this
...can only be used if the root of the original tooth is still in place.
So, a crown? We already have lots of nice materials and manufacturing techniques for crowns.
So, a crown? We already have lots of nice materials and manufacturing techniques for crowns.
As I understand it, the difference here is that the root is removed during extraction and immediately replaced with the CNC-milled/"3-D printed" tooth.
I'm not entirely sure why the root needs to be in place before – perhaps the chances of the implant integrating with bone is better immediately after extraction?
I'm not entirely sure why the root needs to be in place before – perhaps the chances of the implant integrating with bone is better immediately after extraction?
Oh, I see, that is different. Frankly I'm surprised this works even when placed immediately after root extraction, but if so it would certainly be more "natural" than titanium screws...
Name of company? I’m currently straightening my teeth in preparation to get implants in late 2020.
Do you have a link? I’m pretty interested in this field, and as far as I know all the 3D printing tooth companies are just using the same old materials. Most labs can already CNC you a tooth the same day. All of the “bio-printing” stuff I’ve seen thus far is marketing BS.
One here in Austria is http://www.bioimplant.at ... The problem with this method is that it only works shortly after the old tooth is extracted.
Was just joking with my dentist about this. As a kid and teenager I was very bad about brushing and only flossed if I had something painful stuck in my teeth, I’ve paid for it with tons of cavities. She said I need to be careful about how hard I floss now because I could damage the fillings and then will need implants for some of them. I jokingly replied that hopefully by the time the need arose science would be able to regrow a full set of teeth for me.
Brushing teeth is a must but flossing wasn't proven to have measurable effect on teeth health last time I checked.
There was a huge (flawed) news story back in 2016 that reported flossing wasn’t worth it and it spread like wildfire because people don’t like to floss. Kind of like how there’s a big “wine/chocolate is good for you” article every couple years.
I’ve worked alongside dentists in and off in a marketing capacity. I’ve also been married to one for 15+ years and I can tell you that every dentist in the country can look in your mouth and knows whether you floss regularly or not by the amount of plaque built up between your teeth. And plaque is bad. The NIH published an article shortly after the one I mentioned above to try and combat the misinformation: https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2016/11/dont-toss-floss
More on Snopes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/06/...
TL;DR: flossing is poorly executed by most people (much like brushing) and the studies on it are flawed, but you’d be hard pressed to find an oral healthcare pro that would recommend against it, and almost all are for it. And no, there is no “big flossing lobby” pushing it.
I’ve worked alongside dentists in and off in a marketing capacity. I’ve also been married to one for 15+ years and I can tell you that every dentist in the country can look in your mouth and knows whether you floss regularly or not by the amount of plaque built up between your teeth. And plaque is bad. The NIH published an article shortly after the one I mentioned above to try and combat the misinformation: https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2016/11/dont-toss-floss
More on Snopes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/06/...
TL;DR: flossing is poorly executed by most people (much like brushing) and the studies on it are flawed, but you’d be hard pressed to find an oral healthcare pro that would recommend against it, and almost all are for it. And no, there is no “big flossing lobby” pushing it.
Is a water jet equal to or better than flossing?
Dental plaque is a biofilm. The point of flossing is to break up the biofilm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_plaque
Here's a study (just read the summary here) that says a water jet (waterpik brand,) is effective. No idea who paid for the study and didn't research the plaque types mentioned against the wikipedia plaque article to see if there are other types of plaque.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19385349
I have to say if I go a couple days without flossing (once in the evening,) but with water jetting, I can feel the floss sliding across something, presumably the plaque/biofilm between the teeth before the floss cuts into that layer and I can feel it against the tooth. I use one of those forked flossers which isn't the best approach as it doesn't wrap around the tooth but you can pivot the fork to get some extra coverage. It makes an onerous task slightly less onerous.
You can buy plaque staining tablets to visually evaluate your plaque condition. Buy some, water jet and test. Floss and test. let us know the results.
I do both plus an Oral-B electric brush. Probably too much for most people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_plaque
Here's a study (just read the summary here) that says a water jet (waterpik brand,) is effective. No idea who paid for the study and didn't research the plaque types mentioned against the wikipedia plaque article to see if there are other types of plaque.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19385349
I have to say if I go a couple days without flossing (once in the evening,) but with water jetting, I can feel the floss sliding across something, presumably the plaque/biofilm between the teeth before the floss cuts into that layer and I can feel it against the tooth. I use one of those forked flossers which isn't the best approach as it doesn't wrap around the tooth but you can pivot the fork to get some extra coverage. It makes an onerous task slightly less onerous.
You can buy plaque staining tablets to visually evaluate your plaque condition. Buy some, water jet and test. Floss and test. let us know the results.
I do both plus an Oral-B electric brush. Probably too much for most people.
Not sure about waterjet but a electric toothbrush like Sonicare is pretty good at cleaning the teeth. You can just feel the teeth are much cleaner with very little left for the floss to clean. Maybe the back molars need some flossing. I kind of enjoy using the Sonicare too since it makes the job of cleaning trivial.
Then why have my dentists over the past decades always asked me how much I floss (I don't) instead of giving me increasingly severe warnings about my tooth damage due to lack of flossing?
“How much do you floss?” In no way implies they think you floss often. It’s actually the reverse. For example, if someone ask “How much do you shower?” It’s a not so subtle hint that you stink, not that they think you shower often.
You aren't contradicting parent poster. Snopes conformed that flossing is backed only by the speculation and comical bias of dentists who don't collect data careful. (Healthy gums are assumed to be evidence for flossing, therefore flossing is confused to be evidence for healthy gums).
Dentist here. The main take away from the study is that if you’re not flossing the right way, don’t bother because it won’t do any good. So floss the right way.
What's your opinion of picks? I use about 3 or 4 a day after meals and always remove a little matter stuck between teeth that no doubt could serve as bacteria buffet. Surely getting rid of those bacterial food sources is better than "bad flossing" right?
I personally use Plackers brand picks.
It has an effect on gum health, which is far more important for the integrity of your teeth and overall health than some superficial crevices that can be filled.
EDIT: Also, we understand the mechanism by which food left in the teeth contributes to gum disease very well. I'm all for demanding high quality epidemiological evidence when we just have a hunch about things, because we deserve at least some correlational power to any claim, but the way in which this data is collected by something as difficult to monitor, annoying to some people, and socially pressured as oral hygiene is deservedly suspect IMHO given our direct clinical knowledge of the health matter in question: it's aetiology, progression, and reversal, on an observable level per organism is very well understood by modern dentistry, AFAIK.
EDIT: Also, we understand the mechanism by which food left in the teeth contributes to gum disease very well. I'm all for demanding high quality epidemiological evidence when we just have a hunch about things, because we deserve at least some correlational power to any claim, but the way in which this data is collected by something as difficult to monitor, annoying to some people, and socially pressured as oral hygiene is deservedly suspect IMHO given our direct clinical knowledge of the health matter in question: it's aetiology, progression, and reversal, on an observable level per organism is very well understood by modern dentistry, AFAIK.
(Not a dentist) Depends on the brush usage and type of the brush I would say, some brushes are not able to pick up small leftover food between teeth. I find it incredibly useful to floss before sleeping, since that is the time where you are guaranteed to not eat or drink anything for a long time, not giving any chance for bacteria to grow.
I have a Waterpik and also do oil pulling with coconut oil almost every day. Especially with the coconut oil the dentist noticed a difference in gum health even without me telling him.
Last time I checked there was no evidence that oil pulling did anything that normal mouth wash couldn't do better.
For me it feels different , less aggressive. It’s also cheaper. But whatever works for you, do it.
the waterpik is the most useful tool I found this decade. I think I have become over-reliant on it. My teeth barely have any space between them, so I always end up tearing the regular string floss, and I would never be able to reach/cover so many parts of the mouth without a waterpik/ water flosser. Had not heard of oil pulling, thanks!
I use the Crest "Glide" floss; with regular floss, I'm constantly cutting it in half between some of my teeth which are very close together, but the Glide stuff seems to work much better.
Strangely, I've had one dentist tell me Glide floss is horrible and I should use some other floss that's "fluffy" (sorry, can't remember the brand/type, I think it was a J&J product), while more recent dentists give me Glide samples every time I visit. I tried that other dentist's recommended floss for a little while, but it was the absolute worst I tried in terms of tearing; it was basically unusable because it just kept getting ripped in half due to my tight contacts.
Strangely, I've had one dentist tell me Glide floss is horrible and I should use some other floss that's "fluffy" (sorry, can't remember the brand/type, I think it was a J&J product), while more recent dentists give me Glide samples every time I visit. I tried that other dentist's recommended floss for a little while, but it was the absolute worst I tried in terms of tearing; it was basically unusable because it just kept getting ripped in half due to my tight contacts.
Do you find it more or less effective than regular flossing? I've been looking for alternatives to plastic picks/floss. Also they seem to be damaging my gums as I floss too hard
More effective since I barely did any regular flossing before. I have(or had) sensitive gums and I would constantly bleed and I never developed a proper technique and habit with regular floss. with this, it feels like everything between the teeth gets flushed. The string floss still gets used when I am out (no more bleeding) but even once I get home I use the Waterpik, and I can still see some bits I missed. This sounds like an ad but I have been super satisfied with a Mornwell wireless oral irrigator. ideal usecase for a wireless charging station, since I always worried about it being wet near wirea with the older ones I had. I am still waiting for something bad to happen to me since this has helped me too much.
That’s just me but I am fairly certain that the Waterpik benefits my teeth and gums more than flossing. I do both but if I had to drop one it would be flossing.
How long do you pull? Is 2m enough?
Ten minutes. At first I hated the oil but now I kind of like it.
It depends on your teeth too. We can appear to have near perfect teeth, but they can still be compromised in a way that flossing can help.
Do you really need a study to prove you shouldn't have rotting food stuck between your teeth?
You should be asking for the study that proves flossing is beneficial.
Why not? You have saliva in your mouth with enzymes that usually get in a number of remote places anyway. Not sure why you would assume flossing is required if there are other mechanisms that already take care of that problem.
Don't floss for a month and see how well saliva is at breaking down the food between your teeth.
There are lots of mechanisms your body has that are adequate enough to get you to puberty, so you can reproduce.
If you want better than adequate, you should floss.
There are lots of mechanisms your body has that are adequate enough to get you to puberty, so you can reproduce.
If you want better than adequate, you should floss.
Another important factor with these "our bodies already have a natural mechanism..." arguments is that we don't eat the same foods that prehistoric people did when they evolved, in addition to the fact that we now expect to live to 80-100 while still being highly mobile and having all our original teeth if possible.
Prehistoric people did live to old age if they didn't get killed by disease or wild animals or accidents or murder, but they probably didn't look too good at that age and probably didn't have many teeth left either.
Prehistoric people did live to old age if they didn't get killed by disease or wild animals or accidents or murder, but they probably didn't look too good at that age and probably didn't have many teeth left either.
My dentist hates google, internet, science reporting, etc. Patients are always asking about miracle cures.
So for years now I poke the bear by excitedly asking about some new treatment I had "just read about" (meaning I just made it up). Stem cells, nanobots, lasers, supplements, etc.
It's fun to see him get spun up. He's so serious, earnest. Slow to catch on that I'm poking him.
Before he pokes me.
So for years now I poke the bear by excitedly asking about some new treatment I had "just read about" (meaning I just made it up). Stem cells, nanobots, lasers, supplements, etc.
It's fun to see him get spun up. He's so serious, earnest. Slow to catch on that I'm poking him.
Before he pokes me.
I’ve been seeing articles about this since the 90s. I don’t think it will ever happen. Even if we had the technology, dealing with stem cells would be super expensive compared to doing a bridge or implant.
And for whatever reason, dentistry is an extremely conservative field.
And for whatever reason, dentistry is an extremely conservative field.
In re: regeneration, see also: "The Body Electric" by Robert O. Becker and Gary Selden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Electric_(book) and "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System (youtube.com)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698
I’ve been dreaming about this for forty years - ever since I read about some guy that got irradiated by a UFO and a couple months later his teeth started falling out and they found a brand new set growing in beneath them. Wouldn’t it be nice?
I think they have made some advances towards this in the UK also though it’s targeted at accident victims needing major facial reconstruction.
It would also be interesting to see how long elephants might live if we could regrow their teeth - disease and predators aside that seems to be the limiting factor to their life span at the moment.
I think they have made some advances towards this in the UK also though it’s targeted at accident victims needing major facial reconstruction.
It would also be interesting to see how long elephants might live if we could regrow their teeth - disease and predators aside that seems to be the limiting factor to their life span at the moment.
Tooth loss is often because of gum loss. Until we can regrow gum, any new teeth will just fall out again?
Why grow new biological teeth? We have the material to create and implant fake teeth that are better in every way. The real question should be when will it become more practical to simply replace a tooth rather than fill/cap/drill to save the biological tooth.
This is simply not true. Composites of today are still more brittle and fragile than human teeth. Also when implants are placed you're removing bone in order to place them. This can, and often does, weaken the placement region. Finally you're at higher risk of sinus perforation during extractions among other, generally permanent, complications. My SO is a DSS who does all of this and if you can keep your real teeth, they're almost always superior. Dr. Seuss had it right.
>>> Also when implants are placed you're removing bone in order to place them.
Read up on dental technology. Implants are not the cutting edge of anything. The modern trend it towards 3d printing the entire tooth, roots and all. Within a few years there will be no need to anchor to bone. Furthermore, steel is pretty strong. It doesn't shatter. A solid steel (or other metal) tooth, with composite/ceramic root structure, would last more than a lifetime.
Read up on dental technology. Implants are not the cutting edge of anything. The modern trend it towards 3d printing the entire tooth, roots and all. Within a few years there will be no need to anchor to bone. Furthermore, steel is pretty strong. It doesn't shatter. A solid steel (or other metal) tooth, with composite/ceramic root structure, would last more than a lifetime.
Like I said, my SO is a DSS and we get have copious literature on the topic lying around the house. All of the things you've outlined don't exist or are not widely 1) accepted and/or 2) not approved for use. And even if you can print an entire tooth including root structure placing these printed teeth is a challenge. I've seen crazy root structures my SO has shown me. Often times teeth need to be sectioned for removal of them which basically makes replacement impossible. With regard to steel with a composite on-lay, this is exactly what I'm talking about. While steel may last the composite on-lay will not. You're ignoring the difference in forces different teeth are subject to. Front teeth are cutting teeth and need longitudal strength. Ceramic is no comparison to the versatile strength of your original tooth which is why you'll often see total failure of an implant far more often than a shattered real tooth. While I realize you may have read a few things on the topic your comments showcase a lack of domain expertise, so kindly heed your own advice before positing inaccuracies.
Why on earth would you want a tooth made of steel? Steel is extremely dense and heavy; you don't want something that heavy in your mouth.
There's multiple reasons that implants today are made of titanium. Biocompatibility is one reason, but low weight is a nice bonus. Titanium isn't as hard as steel, though, but that shouldn't matter for fake teeth: it would likely be coated with a ceramic anyway, because no one wants gray-metal teeth unless they're trying to look like a Terminator. I'm pretty sure this is already how crowns are generally made today.
AFAICT, artificial teeth should outperform natural ones in every way, except one very important one: how it interfaces with the rest of the body. And that's probably the biggest reason there's research on growing replacements in-situ like this. It's like this for every kind of implant I think.
There's multiple reasons that implants today are made of titanium. Biocompatibility is one reason, but low weight is a nice bonus. Titanium isn't as hard as steel, though, but that shouldn't matter for fake teeth: it would likely be coated with a ceramic anyway, because no one wants gray-metal teeth unless they're trying to look like a Terminator. I'm pretty sure this is already how crowns are generally made today.
AFAICT, artificial teeth should outperform natural ones in every way, except one very important one: how it interfaces with the rest of the body. And that's probably the biggest reason there's research on growing replacements in-situ like this. It's like this for every kind of implant I think.
I have trouble believing that. New teeth would have nerves, for one.
Nerves in teeth could be considered a bug and not a feature. The sensations you want (chewing food) transmit mechanically through the jaw. The sensations that the tooth's nerve generate are unpleasant ones - extreme heat, cold, pain, sensitivity.
The pain part can be useful: if you have a tooth infection, that nerve tells you before the infection spreads to your brain.
The heat and cold sensations aren't terribly useful though.
The heat and cold sensations aren't terribly useful though.
Do you have implants?
I have a lot! They are more durable than biological teeth, the main drawback is that I need to be a bit more careful flossing.
Honestly, I'm not sure what's better, in the long run: An implant or regrowing a tooth. I guess it will really just come down to what's cheaper.
I have a lot! They are more durable than biological teeth, the main drawback is that I need to be a bit more careful flossing.
Honestly, I'm not sure what's better, in the long run: An implant or regrowing a tooth. I guess it will really just come down to what's cheaper.
Dentists in my area have been told by insurance companies to pitch whole-tooth replacements instead of root canals. The failure rate at 10/15 years for root canals is higher than for implants. So it makes financial sense to just pull and replace rather than extensively repair a bad tooth.
I completely agree, I had a tooth pulled two weeks ago because it cracked after a root canal.
Prior to the root canal, I had a gum graft... I vaguely remember asking the surgeon if I should just have the tooth removed.
It would have been a lot cheaper, and simpler, to just pull the tooth in the beginning. It was in the back of my mouth, with no tooth below it.
Prior to the root canal, I had a gum graft... I vaguely remember asking the surgeon if I should just have the tooth removed.
It would have been a lot cheaper, and simpler, to just pull the tooth in the beginning. It was in the back of my mouth, with no tooth below it.
Problem with implants is that they cause compressive stress to the bone, which causes bone to deteriorate.
Teeth are held by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpey%27s_fibres. This converts the forces acting on the tooth to
tensile stress on the bone, which causes it to grow more dense.
Implants are only one way of replacing teeth, anchoring replacements to bone. They are not the only method. 3d-printed replacements, with roots, are in development. They would be slotted into the hole left by a pulled tooth.
[0] https://techventures.columbia.edu/news-and-events/latest-new...