Scientists Likely Found Way to Grow New Teeth for Patients
sciencetimes.com
sciencetimes.com
[0] https://techventures.columbia.edu/news-and-events/latest-new...
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.
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.
What.
> [Māui] proposes to kill Hine-nui-te-pō by entering her vagina and exiting through her mouth whilst she is sleeping
The idea that our cells forget what they are supposed to be.
Tideglusib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tideglusib
Very interesting mechanism.
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.
Maybe when the hens grow teeth, as the french say we'll be able to do that in humans too.
...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)?
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.
It’s already got its patents granted and is transitioning from prototypes to production units, IIRC.
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, a crown? We already have lots of nice materials and manufacturing techniques for crowns.
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And for whatever reason, dentistry is an extremely conservative field.
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.
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.
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.
The heat and cold sensations aren't terribly useful though.
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.
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.