Dentists to replace drills with plasma jets
crunchgear.com
crunchgear.com
Here's the problem: bacteria (specifically, the acid they produce from metabolism of sugars) demineralize the hydroxylapatite of enamel (the stuff covering your teeth). Enamel is not biologically viable and therefore does not have the ability to _regenerate_. But it can, under certain circumstances, _remineralize_. SO, eliminating harmful bacteria using plasma technology WOULD give portions of enamel the opportunity to remineralize.
Unfortunately, if a caries lesion ("cavity") penetrates to the point that it reaches underlying, vital tooth structure (dentin, pulp), then surgical removal of the infected tooth tissue is the only way to effectively treat the growing lesion. Bacterial control by plasma at this point would be insufficient to keep the structure of the tooth crown sound. Thus, you need a drill to cut away tooth structure.
Furthermore, I object to the article's use of "sterilize". It's important to understand that epithelial or mucosal surfaces covering the human body can never be sterilized ("all living organisms eliminated except prions"). The bacterial load can only be reduced, never eliminated.
Then again... this article is a TechCrunch production, so what do we expect?
Expecting the author of a bit piece on a tech site to have knowledge of dentistry is a bit of a stretch (don't get me wrong - I loved your insight). Even the BBC's writeup - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8470827.stm - doesn't go into such detail.. but this feels like yet another trendy, but baseless, snipe at TechCrunch.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/plasma-jets-dental-dri...
My reward was a series of extremely painful toothaches followed almost immediately by a bunch of very expensive root canals and crowns.
Let me assure you: Once your toothache starts, your time as a dentist-denier is going to come to a fast end, one way or another. They hurt a lot. Not to mention the fact that if you get an abscessed tooth it can literally threaten your life.
Of course, you don't necessarily have to have the dental insurance and the well-paying job that I had when my dental emergency arrived. Instead you can elect the more traditional option: Have all the offending teeth pulled out. Then you may eventually need dentures. [1] I'm told that dentures are no fun whatsoever. I have had no reason to regret spending money on dentistry instead.
Of course, if you literally never touch soda or sugar, brush your teeth carefully, and are blessed with better genetics than mine you might get lucky...
---
[1] Pulling one tooth can have a negative effect on neighboring teeth, as the bone loss under the empty space causes the neighbors to loosen and slip. That's why people who lose permanent teeth tend to get crowns or bridges.
More important factors include: (1) frequency and dose of fluoride (2) bacterial ecology of the mouth (possibly related to genetics, but also inextricably linked to the environment to which the individual has been exposed since birth) (3) FREQUENCY of meals -- look up "Stephan Curve" or the unethical "Vipeholm Study" if you are interested in this...
Also, based on the fact that my dad has horrible luck with his teeth (cavities, root canals, etc), and dminor's comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1108895) in this thread saying that they have very different luck with their teeth from their brother, I would venture to guess that it may have a lot to do with the mother's side of the genetics (being linked to the X chromosome that gets passed down). In dminor's case, they could have received one X from their mother and their brother have received genetic makeup from the other X, which could explain their differences in dental hygiene at least partially. If it were Y-linked, then I'd obviously have much closer luck to my dad's, and those two brothers would be much closer in results to each other, since there is only one Y to be given from one parent.
Of course, this is all nothing more than educated conjecture. I'm probably totally off base and it's likely much more complicated than that. For all I know, these results could be all coincidence, and the genetic characteristics could be totally unrelated to the sex-giving genes. (In other words, I have no dental training and nothing more than a curious, inquisitive disposition.)
I would love a post about your most interesting findings. Looking into the Vipeholm Study now.
I imagine, to some extent, that there it is the best interest of dentists to have you come in regularly, but I have to imagine that the research says that going to the dentist prevents all kinds of tooth and gum problems.
Really though, even if it's not a good solution for serious dental problems, if it can provide a pain-free, fear-free (that drill just terrifies a lot of people, honestly), quick means of dealing with minor tooth decay, then perhaps more people will seek treatment earlier, before things get out of hand.
I still think the number one factor in individuals not seeking proper dental care, however, is cost and the fact that it's just so hard to get good, affordable dental insurance (or any dental insurance at all). We could go on for hours about the flaws in our healthcare system in the US and about how hard it is for many people to get insurance, but getting dental insurance is even more difficult in a lot of cases.
Sadly, I don't think adding plasma and lasers is going to drive the cost down any, at least not for several years. Not that this, in any way, means I think we should stop innovating, because innovation is going to lead to better care and, hopefully, eventually, more affordable care.
I can remember getting pretty freaked out when he was explaining it to me.
Per WebMD: http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/air-abrasion