Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Re-grow Dental Enamel
A reader at Cloning Resources writes "Dental enamel is the hardest tissue produced by the body. It cannot regenerate itself, because it is formed by a layer of cells that is lost by the time the tooth appears in the mouth. The enamel spends the remainder of its lifetime vulnerable to wear, damage, and decay. In hopes of eventually replacing teeth, scientists from Japan have developed a new method for growing dental enamel."
Like all genetic regrowth techniques, this one has a long way to go before it could be used in humans. At present, it involves using pig cells incubated in the abdominal tissue of living rats. Fascinating, to be sure, but not quite mainstream yet.
It is interesting that this group is using collagen sponges as scaffolding; I'm glad to hear research has continued with that technique to the point that it is functional for growing complex tissues.
This is certainly promising; the step from here to fully-regrown teeth is not overwhelming. Still, I wouldn't bet on your Coca-Cola stocks skyrocketing just yet.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
Aside from the article submitter copying and pasting the first paragraph of the article into the submission...
I have tongue rings, and my enamel wore down because of them. Which makes me sad. I digress.
Enamel fillings, instead of metal? Rock.
TFA mentions replacing whole teeth? I can see this catching on with old people.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you could grow a layer of white enamel over the yellow enamel. Then, smokers wouldn't need to go buy whitening strips anymore!
:(){
This is a godsend for those people who grit their teeth involuntarily at night, like my father. The enamel on his teeth is most likely all gone already. (And those people who are nervous before exams in school and grit their teeth, etc.)
And, who knows, we might even be able to avoid filling teeth in the future; just apply/create some enamel in a cavity after burning the bacteria, neutralising the acid and stuff like that.
There are many good reasons to avoid excessive consumption of sugar/caffeine drinks, not least, avoiding the need for replacement teeth such as those we're discussing here. However, it's an urban legend that excessive sugar consumption causes diabetes (though of course it can lead to being overweight, which is associated with triggering type 2 diabetes)./p
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
... I was thinking as I was having my wisdom teeth removed that it would be nice if it could be possible to artificially trigger the same response that causes the 'baby' teeth to fall out, maybe by injecting something in the root to cause it to disolve. Much less blood, pain, and (potential) nerve damage.
http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/nice_teef.jpg
But seriously, I've lost most of the enamel at my gum line (apparently due to brushing too virorously!), I've had one root canal (== dead tooth), and several big fillings. I've been eagerly awaiting someone to figure out how to grow new teeth so that when I yawn, people aren't blinded by sunlight refelcting off all the silver in my mouth.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
In the emergent field of tooth-tissue engineering, several groups have developed their own approaches.
IOW, there are many tries, but this one's got teeth to it?
Have you read my journal today?
There was an article last year about someone coming up with using ultrasonic waves to trigger regrowth of teeth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/0606
This seems much more along, and less complicated. I imagine a new use for an ultrasonic transducer is easier to get approved than transgenic tissue grafting.
I really wish there was some central repository of active studies, with an easy way to grade their progress and potential oversight burden. I imagine being able to subscribe to studies and experiments, and receiving updates when available. The most irritating thing about 'scientific discovery' news articles is the fickle nature of the media to keep people in the loop on it. Whenever a bold claim is made, it becomes news. But the incremental progress is not sexy, so you never hear of it again. How many 'promising' cures for various cancers have we heard of, only to never heard of them again?
++ Informative
I'll admit I haven't followed this stuff very carefully; there are no diabetics in or immediately off of my blood line as far back as I am able to find medical information.
However it sounds like that might be confusing correlation with causation. It's quite possible both high sugar consumption and diabetes are caused by the same root. For example, it's possible that the body is already a little out of whack on its sugar and insulin processing, which makes sugar more desirable, and hence people who will eventually develop diabetes are more likely to consume too much sugar.
Do you know if the studies have examined, for example, multiple siblings (or better, maternal twins) whose sugar consumption was initially comparable, and where one during the course of the study has made a conscious effort to avoid excess sugar intake, while the other has indulged? Given enough such data, you could establish a causational relationship, but such a study would be incredibly hard to control and so you'd want a really large data set.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Perhaps you'd care to cite those studies, then?
You might care to pass them on to the American Diabetes Association and Diabetes UK, both of which seem pretty clear that we're talking about a myth here. A quick Google will also turn up several recent research papers that do not show the link you assert.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That is the really sad thing about tongue piercings and mouth piercings that nobody tells you about before you get them.
Unless they're properly sized, your teeth will get worn and chipped. I chipped a molar a week after I had my tongue pierced.
Regarding the technique in the article, I think a better solution for many people is to figure out how to stimulate the growth of completely new teeth in adults, yank 'em all, and have all new ones grow in place. Especially if you can decide to omit extra molars the second time around for people with smaller mouths.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Sort of. The pressure from the adult teeth cause the roots of the baby teeth to dissolve. A baby tooth falling out doesn't look like an extracted tooth - the root is almost gone by time it falls out.
Let's see Wikipedia must have something on this.... ah, here:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That is the really sad thing about tongue piercings and mouth piercings that nobody tells you about before you get them.
What? JFGI.
Do you mean those marketing the product didn't tell you about the risks or that you didn't do any research?
Lesson 1: Don't believe people trying to sell you something
Lesson 2: Cosmetic body alterations are almost never a good idea.
These used to fall under the heading of 'common sense'.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
They propagated the cell-sponge matrix inside rat's abdomens. And they want that in your mouth? Ick. Biotech has a strong gross-out factor sometimes. They put dead people's bones in living people and use cow bone for reconstruction? Are we becoming vampires in a hi-tech manner?
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Your blood sugar shouldn't really be high... but if you're forcing your body to continuously produce high levels of insulin you may become resistant. It's also known that fat has various metabolic effects that decrease insulin sensitivity. On the bright side, getting rid of the fat can help reverse those effects.
It's not so much how much sugar you eat, but how out of whack with the rest of your lifestyle it is.
You do realize that the typical way to 'produce' diabetic rats is feeding them fructose, right?
There is a rather interesting correlation between the timelines of companies replacing table sugar in the sugar water drinks with fructose and a dramatic increase in the number of diabetic people.
You are probably right in that sugar as in sucrose doesn't cause diabetes, but that's not what is generally in sodas these days, having been replaced by cheaper fructose.
Maybe I'm just missing something, but ceramics have been around for a long time. Couldn't you use ceramics instead of 'home grown' enamel for the same effect? (I'd feel more safe doing that than putting pig teeth incubated in rat guts in my mouth.)
Perhaps you haven't noticed that many medical advances are initially only available for the rich, then work their way down. If the research isn't done, no one will ever get it.
That might be true in the case of people who are not already at risk for diabetes. However, I know of two people (my grandmother and a (college-age) friend of mine) who were told by their doctors that they were at risk for diabetes and that they should therefore stick to a strict diet which would help prevent their risk from developing into full-blown diabetes. This largely (for my grandmother at least) meant a severe restriction on sugar consumption. Both ignored it, and sure enough, both are now diabetic. Were their doctors ensnared by this myth as well, or are you only referring to people who are not at risk already?
My grandmother is/was only very slightly overweight. The young friend -- not overweight at all, rather underweight in fact. Underweight due to (like me) metabolism, not self starvation or any kind of eating disorder like that. Also, she ignored the doctors advice for two reasons: One, she didn't have a blood sugar testing machine, her insurance refused to pay for one, and neither she nor the rest of her family could afford one independently. Two, she didn't have enough money to buy the foods she was supposed to be eating, and rather ate things like a spoonful of peanut butter for dinner because that was what she could afford. Just in case you were wondering.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
It's not my fault that you have no dental care, nor is it the fault of the researchers. I'd say that it's most likely the fault of insurance companies and the US Congress. My complaint with Congress is that they allow businesses to write off the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, but they do not allow individuals who are not covered by an employer's plan to write off the cost of buying the insurance themselves. It is unconscionable that Congress should give this "perk" to businesses and not to individuals.
Although I currently have health insurance that covers dental care, I have at times in the past had to pay for dental care out of my own pocket. And at those times, I was still glad that there were people doing research to improve the state of the art of dental care.
Biology is amazing and cool in general. It's just that many humans haven't come to terms with the fact that they are biological creatures. Notice how the GP references artificial blood as though this would somehow be an intrinsically better solution than natural biological blood. This is just an anti-biology prejudice that comes from denying one's human and animal nature.
'Although I currently have health insurance that covers dental care, I have at times in the past had to pay for dental care out of my own pocket. And at those times, I was still glad that there were people doing research to improve the state of the art of dental care.'
That makes you both more wealthy and better insured than most of us. It isn't as if it is a choice between paying out of pocket and insurance. It is a choice between having insurance and some care and no care at all. Most of us can't afford and couldn't get a loan for the several thousand dollars worth of Dental work that we need.
'I'd say that it's most likely the fault of insurance companies and the US Congress. My complaint with Congress is that they allow businesses to write off the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, but they do not allow individuals who are not covered by an employer's plan to write off the cost of buying the insurance themselves. It is unconscionable that Congress should give this "perk" to businesses and not to individuals.'
It is certainly the fault of insurance companies and Congress. Most of those who need this care are working americans who don't make enough to pay for the insurance even if it were written off (although I also agree that it should be written off for individuals). These americans don't make enough to benefit from a tax break either. If you make enough to need a tax break then you are in the upper-middle class or better category.
What we need is for the existing insurance programs that are applied to government workers be extended to all americans. That way there would be none of the normal government red tape added by those who oppose tax funded programs and add tape to try to minimize the payouts. That way everyone can go to their choice of quality private doctors and can be prescribed the most effective medication even it just came out yesterday. We are the wealthiest nation in the world and those with wealth have that wealth because of the sweat of the workers they exploit.
You could even do it without a tax hike if we brought all the troops we have stationed across the globe home and cut the defense budget to the minimum needed to keep our armed forces strong domestically instead of what we need to be successful in an offensive capacity.