Slashdot Mirror


Growing Teeth with Stem Cell Technology

davidoff404 writes "Lost a tooth lately? Well, a natural cure may be at hand. The BBC is reporting on a grant awarded to researchers at King's College, London, which they say will allow them to develop a technique for growing natural replacement teeth. Using recently developed techniques, stem cells can be programmed to develop into teeth, and then inserted into the gap in a patient's jaw. According to the BBC, the research has already been successfully performed on mice, and clinical trials on humans should begin within two years."

29 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. of all the things by millahtime · · Score: 3, Insightful

    of all the things to grow are teeth. Why not something like hair. That's where the money is. Look at all the infomercials.

  2. Re:Note to all /. readers... by DR+SoB · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Patient: Do I have to floss all my teeth?

    Dentist: No just the ones you want to keep.

    Seriously, even if this works, nothing is 100% and I'm sure they're will be some screw ups, i.e. gum infections, roots not fitting, jaw bone to destroyed to set new teeth, etc.

    Having just had a root canal done recently, I can tell you, take care of your teeth cuz when things go wrong, it hurrrttts!

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
  3. Keep it up, Europe by Patik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad Bush won't allow the U.S. to fund this fantastic, useful research because it clashes with his religious ideals. I can only hope that universities and companies within Europe keep moving forward.

    1. Re:Keep it up, Europe by Planesdragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad Bush won't allow the U.S. to fund this fantastic, useful research because it clashes with his religious ideals

      Step back, oh, sixty-seventy years.

      "Too bad the UK won't allow this stunning new Eugenics research, because it clashes with their religious ideals. I mean, it's not like they're PEOPLE or anything."

      Stopping research because of religiously-based morals has a long and time-honored tradition, that didn't start with Bush and won't go away when he leaves office.

      That said, Bush is just fine with companies doing research with "morally obtained" stem cells. I don't recall what the criteria is, but I do believe that "not from abortion" is a big one, and that about twenty (out of 100 or so) of the extant stem-cell lines qualify.

    2. Re:Keep it up, Europe by drsmack1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The USA is a representative democracy - fetal stem cell research is opposed by the majority of the population. Bush is not pushing an unpopular policy on the people. Different people have different ideas on what constitutes "moving forward". To them your "moving forward" on this line of scientific research is "moving backwards" on the rights of the unborn and the value of human life. Some of this is being pushed by companies that profit from abortion. There is a LOT of money there. Also a lot of the same people (not saying you are one of them) who fight against animal testing are in your camp. I find this disturbing.

    3. Re:Keep it up, Europe by Patik · · Score: 3, Insightful
      fetal stem cell research is opposed by the majority of the population.
      How do you know?
      To them your "moving forward" on this line of scientific research is "moving backwards" on the rights of the unborn and the value of human life.
      But I'm sure a lot of them will gladly receive new operations/medicines/treatments that were made possible by stem cell research.
    4. Re:Keep it up, Europe by goon+america · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny how another article in the NYT says "The US is losing dominance in the sciences". Keep it up, Bush team! Soon we'll be living in that conservative, backwards anti-scientific paradise in no time!

    5. Re:Keep it up, Europe by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Insightful
      fetal stem cell research is opposed by the majority of the population.

      Correction. It is supported by the vocal population. I bet 90 % of the people in this country could care less. They are too worried trying to find jobs and keep paying the rent.

    6. Re:Keep it up, Europe by TGK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know where you're coming from, but the way Bush went about this was one of the most offensive things about his administration.

      Bush banned research on stem cells harvested from abortions. Abortions are going to happen reguardless, harvesting stem cells at least allows the death of the unborn child (if you buy into that) to serve to save lives and better humanity.

      If Bush wanted to prevent abortions from happening to get stem cells he should have put in place laws restricting the availability of stem cells to the family of the aborted fetus. Further steps should have been put in place to prevent the sale of stem cells harvested from an aborted fetus.

      Nonetheless, when all is said and done all Bush's regulations have accomplished is the crippling of scientific persuit. Bush hasn't stopped a single abortion through this shift, he has simply denied the American medical community the resources they need to cure the sick.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    7. Re:Keep it up, Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That particular poll is obviously biased. Any question with the words "embryos would be destroyed" will not be well supported.

  4. no mice yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful


    submission says: According to the BBC, the research has already been successfully performed on mice, and clinical trials on humans should begin within two years.

    However the story says: The company Odontis, set up by the college, hopes to develop its research for tests on humans within two years after successful research on mice.

    It doesn't sound like they've actually grown MiceTeeth(tm) yet, unless I'm reading that terribly wrong.

  5. Re:New real teeth? No thanks! by Ouroboro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is my understanding that most of the differences in tooth health around the world are due to environmental variance. I grew up in a place where there was a lot of fluoride in the water, and the schools also had programs to provide additional fluoride. This has given me very hard tooth enamel. In the 30+ years of my life, I've only ever had one cavity filled. One would presume that they would grow the teeth in an environment that fosters teeth that are healthy.

    --
    When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
  6. Re:My eight year old self would be pleased by beckerie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's worrying to think that this development might lead to people becoming complacent about their oral hygiene. Just as the pill doesn't prevent people from contracting STD's, the ability to grow teeth through stem cell technology shouldn't send the message to the general public that it's OK to cut corners with personal health.

    Prevention is better than a cure any day.

  7. This is going to be huge by Richthofen80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    not the teeth part, but the technology itself.

    but the teeth market won't be the market that fuels this research. No, the market is the hair loss market. the same stem cell technology is being used to replace teeth can replace hair follicles.

    in traditional hair restoration, hair is transplanted from point A on the bottom of the scalp, where the follicles for some reason don't fall out like they do on the crown. this works, but the hair has to be spread thin, because there's only X amount you can take, and it means there's going to be missing hair from the bottom.

    what the cloned hair would do is allow an arbitrary thickness and density of placement, not limited by the donors thickness and supply at the base, since you can take a small amount from the base, clone them to the amount you want, and make a better graft.

    i can't wait, being 24 and nearly bald. fight genetics with science.

    --
    Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    1. Re:This is going to be huge by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the same stem cell technology is being used to replace teeth can replace hair follicles.

      Not necessarily. According to the Guardian piece the stem cells are taken from the patient themselves, but it doesn't say where the stem cells originate. I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but there was a really good episode of the PBS show Innovations on stem cell research recently. It talked about spinal cord repair using nerve stem cells from the nose (yes, you have nerve stem cells in your nose. No, I had no idea either.) and heart muscle repair (post heart attack) using bone marrow stem cells.

      Anyway, the deal is that not all stem cells are the same. There are differentiated ones and undifferentiated ones. The differentiated ones cannot be used to grow "any" other kind of cell -- at least, not that we've figured out yet. They have already specialized toward a kind of cell (for instance, nerve cells) and cannot grow other kinds of cells (like blood cells or muscle cells). AFAIK, most of the stem cells we still have after birth are these kind.

      The undifferentiated stem cells are pretty much the holy grail. They can (in theory) be coaxed toward creating any kind of cell you want -- blood, muscle, nerve, tooth, hair, etc. Of course, there's the issue of getting them. I think some of the stem cells in the bone marrow are undifferentiated. I'm not aware of any others elsewhere in the body. But, heck, we weren't even aware of stem cells a few decades ago and I'm certainly not a medical researcher, so I could be dead wrong here.

      All of that said -- whether or not this could be used for your balding head basically comes down to two things -- 1) are they using undifferentiated cells, 2) can we figure out and replicate the process that causes such stem cells to produce hair cells.

      And I very much disagree that the hair replacement market will be a primary funding source -- it's going to be too expensive for some time to come. Surgery, even outpatient surgery, is usually not part of hair replacement, and there's no way to get to stem cells without at least some surgery.

      I suspect most of it will come from cardiovascular and cancer research. Stem cell research is already looking extremely positive for heart attack treatment. So far every study done has given back 100% positive results. That's unheard of. And the treatment is relatively cheap to boot.

      The cancer research comes in an opposite direction. Do you know what leukemia is? Essentially the stem cells in your bone marrow going haywire. We know that stem cells can regenerate other cells, but we really don't understand how, or why they occasionally malfunction. Which is a danger with using stem cell treatments, at least in theory. But if we can figure out how stem cells actually work then we can make some major steps toward fighting cancer.

      Oh, and finally, none of this research is being done with fetal stem cells. It's all being done with the stem cells from the patient themselves. Which is a huge plus as far as rejection goes -- there simply won't be any. The only real advantage of fetal stem cell research is that there's a ton of undifferentiated stem cells in an embryo.

  8. Re:Research on Growing Teeth by DJ+Decay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd go to the dentist with bad teeth, because they were probably looked after by the other dentist. Conversely, the dentist with good teeth was looked after by the "good dentist" with bad teeth.

  9. mmmm...fang implants by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just wonder how long it'll be until we'll be able to design our own dentata. I'm more than a bit curious as to the thought of having a nice set of fang implants, but at the same time, the fact that most designer teeth are just fancy dentures is kind of a let down. A nice set of fangs, along with a real bite, would be awesome, IMNSHO.

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  10. Re:New real teeth? No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Keep Your natural teeth as long as you can.

    I am missing my front 3 teeth. One got knocked out in a car accident and within 1 year the two next to it had become so loose they needed to be pulled. The implants are nice but they just don't feel the same. It is weird. They are also about 1200- 1500 a tooth. And insurance will not cover very much of it (unless you have some stellar insurance)

  11. Recursive by carvalhao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First they find that you can get stem cell from teeth Now you can get teeth from stem cells... Forget abou the chicken and egg tale, this one is way cooler! :)

  12. Re:Connecting the Nerves by baadfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like all biological processes that will (should) be automatic. The simple fact that there is a tooth forming will encourage the growth of blood and nerve endings. Think about this. Before you get your teeth for the first time the plumbing is not yet wired in. Its only as the teeth start to grow that blood and nerves get wired up.

  13. *any* organ by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'Stem cells' can be told to create any organ if we learn how.

    Remember that in the beginning we are just a lump of stem cell goo.. and everything we have was grown from them..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  14. unfortunately, not. by amacbride · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Unfortunately, this is not quite correct. There's still a real problem in the US with the quality of the derived lines. Scientists in the US who are entirely privately funded (the Stanford and Harvard efforts come to mind) can do research on new lines, but anyone receiving Federal money cannot.

    It's no coincidence that this research is happening in the UK; they have a much more research-friendly policy.

  15. Re:Research on Growing Teeth by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The one who is NOT related to the local lawyer. Simple.

    --

    You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
  16. Re:New real teeth? No thanks! by Ouroboro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. While genetics has a some effect on good tooth health, good diet and the presence of fluoride have an even greater effect.

    --
    When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
  17. Not Bloody Likely by milletre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IIAD (American working in England, actually), and I don't see this stuff coming into anyone's mouth for many years to come.

    The hurdles here are the same as hurdles for growing ANY tissue from stem cells. You don't just turn stem cells loose and tell them to become teeth. There is a hugely complex interaction of intra- and inter-cellular communication that goes on that tells a given cell whether to become part of the pulp, whether to start secreting enamel matrix, becoming an odontoblast, etc. If this were just five years off, we'd only be five years off from growing *hands*, etc.

    Even if we could grow *a* tooth, we would have to grow the *right* tooth, especially in the "esthetic zone". How do we make sure that it *looks* like a central incisor with 11mm of enamel showing above the gingiva? How do we make the color right? Do we just grow something that is sort of tooth-like and put a crown on it automatically? Do we grow it in vitro and implant it in a surgical site? Do we grow it in situ? If so, how do we maintain the delicate balance of cellular influences in a mouth where someone ostensibly couldn't even keep their natural teeth in order?

    I think that this is waaaaaay off in the distance. Their five year estimate is pie-in-the-sky pulled-out-of-their-ass.

    In addition ... yeah, they've grown teeth in rats, but in their intestines, IIRC (intentionally in the intestines, but it's still a far cry from functioning dentition in the mouth).

  18. Almost irrelevant? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stem cell research does not need to be used as a reason for killing off unwanted pregnancies.

    When was it ever used as such? Abortions get chucked in biohazard bags and incinerated like any other sort of medical waste.

    You're living in a fantasy world if you think that Superhero Bush stopped legions of money-grubbing women who were clamoring to make a quick buck off of their abortions.

    This is a non-issue if you take the time to think about it. Trash... or valuable medical research. Trash... or valuable medical research. Tough call there.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  19. Re:My eight year old self would be pleased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, because certainly stem cells will never be used to grow gums. Right? I mean, that's absolutely the case isn't it?
    Can you remind me why that is?

  20. Re:Connecting the Nerves by idiot900 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While the growing of teeth is certainly an interesting and useful application of this technology, I personally would like to see how they handle connecting the nerves in the new teeth to the roots in the host.

    I'm by no means an expert in the field, but I'd suspect the newly implanted tooth would be made to secrete nerve growth factors that would cause the appropriate nerves in the gums to grow and attach themselves to the tooth.

  21. Re:New real teeth? No thanks! by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whether or not an individual's teeth fall out has no impact on their offspring.

    Wrong. An individual who has no teeth will be at a serious disadvantage to even survive, let alone reproduce, especially if they have teeth that are specialized for a particular diet (like eating tough grass or crushing mollusk shells or something). In other words, it impacts the potential to have offspring. If the tooth loss has a genetic basis, then any offspring that the toothless individual does manage to have will be similarly disadvantaged when they reach reproductive age.. However, there would be comparatively little selection on a gene that caused all of their teeth to fall out the minute they finished reproducing.

    Loss of teeth is related to oral hygiene of the individual so it cannot be selected for.

    This is pretty unique to humans in western cultures who eat too much refined sugar. Tooth decay like modern humans get is vanishingly rare in nature.

    From an evolutionary perspective, nothing is set in stone. ... so are you retaking the course next semester, then?

    "Sort of set in stone" refers to phylogenetic inertia. Certain things just don't happen very often in evolution because of the difficulty of redesigning an organism. Why do ostriches have wings? Why do humans have an (apparently) nonfunctional vermiform appendix? Why do vertebrates have two sets of limbs instead of three sets? Why am I feeding a troll?

    Maybe you should take a few biology courses yourself, mate.