Slashdot Mirror
Tooth Cavities May Protect Against Cancer
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "John Gever reports at MedPage Today on a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Buffalo, which found that people with more cavities in their teeth are 32 percent less likely to suffer from head and neck cancers. 'To our knowledge, the present study suggests, for the first time, an independent association between dental caries and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.' The researchers proposed a mechanism for the apparent protective effect: that cariogenic, lactic acid-producing bacteria prompt cell-mediated Th1 immune responses that suppress tumor formation. The team examined records of patients older than 21 seen in the university's dental and maxillofacial prosthetics department from 1999 to 2007, identifying 399 who were newly diagnosed with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Assuming that the association between caries and reduced cancer risk is real, the team suggests that one could regard the cariogenic bacteria as beneficial overall, with caries 'a form of collateral damage.' Therefore an appropriate strategy could be to target that effect specifically without aggressively targeting the bacteria. 'Antimicrobial treatment, vaccination, or gene therapy against cariogenic bacteria may lead to more harm than good in the long run.'"
or people who fail to take care of their teeth happen to do something else beneficial. I don't see a cause -> effect mapping between these observations.
Did anyone check the number / type of fillings used on the people with no cavities?
The reduction in head and neck cancers could instead be due to the fact that people with many cavities are likely to brush their teeth less often, and hence have less contact with (unknown) carcinogens in toothpaste.
haven't read TFA, but could also mean those who get their carries fixed have more bitewing x-rays, which increases radiation to the head.
The British ought to have the lowest rates of head and neck cancers in the world...
It seems that they did not control for exposure to fluoridated water. The article says "they had no data on the causes of missing teeth." It would be interesting to see if any clear results emerged from a study that did control for that.
However, given the level of entrenched interest in water fluoridation, I suspect it would be difficult to find funding for such a study, at least in the US.
Maybe time to study the effect of toothpaste and/or mouthwash on these afflictions.
The research suggests that the excretions of the bacteria and the bodies reaction to that are the cause -> effect mapping. However, your suggestion that toothpaste may have unknown carcinogenic properties could be just as valid.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Florine causes cancer.
... Or is a common ingredient in toothpaste a carcinogen?
Sorry can't find any good references right now, but here's this for starters:
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/periodontal-disease-heart-health
Fine, take them at their word.
(1) Use the targeted approach to get rid of the bacteria.
(2) Immunize to provoke the Th1 response that prevents the cancer.
Leave it to a DDS to do a study saying "cavities are good, and we should not take any rash actions which would reduce the customer base for dentists, and if you do, you are all going to get cancer and die".
I agree. It could be the opposite, that whatever prevents cancer causes tooth decay. Or, that there is an accidental association caused by some effect not studied, like accidental, unknown bias in the selection of patients to study.
This seems to be intentional fraud by JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The abstract of the JAMA Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery article calls the effect an "association".
The abstract should carry a warning something like this: "This is just a discovery of an association. No claim is made that one effect causes the other."
Instead, "MedPage Today, LLC and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania" published the "association" as cause and effect: "Dental Caries May Protect Against Cancer". In my opinion, that is fraud of a kind that is engaged in again and again. JAMA knows this occurs and does nothing to stop it. Instead, the public is encouraged to believe that something far more important than an "association" has been discovered. In effect, JAMA is allowing dishonest advertising of the medical and dental professions. JAMA seems to be an aggressive organization that sometimes promotes financial success for doctors against the interests of the public.
Also, the PDF of the slides is misleading. My understanding is that fluoridation means monitoring the levels of fluoride and adding fluoride so that the amount in the water is sufficient, as a child's permanent teeth are growing, to prevent tooth decay over the child's entire young and adult life. Once fluoride is incorporated into the teeth of children, the problem of dental infection by decay-causing bacteria is solved, because the pH required to cause decay in teeth that have fluoride included is never achieved by the bacteria. So, the slides are talking about cures for problems that occur only in people who did not have fluoridated water in childhood. I have friends who say that fluoridation had that effect in themselves and their children.
On Wikipedia, it's written that head and neck cancer
is strongly associated with certain environmental and lifestyle risk factors
The article says,
Other limitations included lack of data on potential confounders such as patients' diet and socioeconomic status
Isn't the work conditions one of the biggest things you look at in a cancer study? In the case of dental study, also diet.
Among 399 patients with head and neck cancer, current or previous dental caries were significantly less common than in 221 individuals without a cancer diagnosis,
Something like smoking or chewing tobacco would increase cancer risks but lower cavities.
Even if this mechanism is real, cariogenic bacteria can only be beneficial if you're certain that tooth decay and the associated problems (abscesses, sepsis, etc.) won't kill you off before you get a chance to get cancer in the first place. It's all fine if you have access to a reasonably good dentist, like a third of the world or so in the past century, but otherwise...just ask Ramesses II.
Ezekiel 23:20
Screw you colgate ! I win.
:) (they prolly cause cancer)
Ms Marsh, suck eggs
I read this article on some self-absorbed 'reason' site (any time a site explicitly describes itself with words like "reason"/"logic/"truth", you can take them as seriously as a site which uses phrases like "the way""the path"/"the light") about how common hypothesis testing is ALL WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - never mind how in practice it confirms well enough the intended outcome.
FTFY.
Yea, two groups are different somehow. That is all NHST will ever tell you and it will always be true. It is a tool of pseudoscience.
Another question: Does Hugh Pickens get paid for promoting this Slashdot article? Did someone at Slashdot get paid for including it?
So on what basis do they conclude anything?
Honest investigation should investigate wether the "association" can have:
1) biological explanations (bacteria, viruses) associated with cavities.
2) dental hygiene explanations (dentist operations, toothpaste, mouthwash, wounds)
3) Hereditary explanations
4) Etc. I'm no expert, but I'm constantly irritated by poor reporting and poor scientific journals assuming too much.
This is what hinders progress: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI&desktop_uri=/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI
Feynman was right making fun of tooth brushing ...
The body knows those cavites are there. Wants those germs dead just so bad. But. Can't really reach them or do much about it directly.
Oh but it can amp up the immune system patrols in the closest areas. Head and neck.
Just waiting for the bad guys to crawl out of their hole...
They got so bad teeth that they can't even bite the dust.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ronald Fisher, Jerzy Neyman, Karl Pearson, William Gosset, Egon Pearson, Paul Meehl, Jerome Cornfield, Alvan Fienstein
Short list (in rough chronological order) of big names who have expressed problems with NHST. And that ignores the Bayesian debate completely. Characterizing the issue as coming from blogs or whatever is completely disingenuous.
Observational Studies are no where near being true nor scientific. Sure they're part of the scientific process but they aren't themselves scientific at all. Clinical studies are required. You could just as easily say that Eating less sugar, thus having less tooth cavities, may protect against cancer, or how about brushing your teeth more often may reduces the risk of getting cancer.
Please, for f**ks sake - stop taking shit out of context and drawing up conclusions. Has everyone forgot about the Nurses' Health Study recommending Estrogen to reduce heart disease? That turned out fantastic didn't it? Some clinical studies were discontinued since those taking Estrogen had an 40% increased risk of heart disease. Yet pills were sold and recommended by doctors based on Observational Studies.
Turns out Natural Estrogen is fine and beneficial, particularly in the early stages of menopause. Emphasis on NATURAL Estrogen.
Let's also not forget that this Cavity Cancer relationship study is conducted by JAMA. The same journal that published a similarly biased observational study on Estrogen (Heart and Estrogen-Progestin Replacement Study (HERS)) in the 1990s giving buzz to the Estrogen pills that were in 2002, clinically proven, to be completely false.
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/estrogen-hormones/default.aspx
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hormone-replacement-therapy/WO00131
How many of these people still have their tonsils? I recall reading in one of the journals, probably on arxxiv and phys.org too, that there is some supporting data showing essentially a second immune system just for the mouth.
No link 'cause my google-fu is coffee fueled.
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
Observational Studies are no where near being true nor scientific. Sure they're part of the scientific process but they aren't themselves scientific at all. Clinical studies are required. You could just as easily say that Eating less sugar, thus having less tooth cavities, may protect against cancer, or how about brushing your teeth more often may reduces the risk of getting cancer. Please, for f**ks sake - stop taking shit out of context and drawing up conclusions. Has everyone forgot about the Nurses' Health Study recommending Estrogen to reduce heart disease? That turned out fantastic didn't it? Some clinical studies were discontinued since those taking Estrogen had an 40% increased risk of heart disease. Yet pills were sold and recommended by doctors based on Observational Studies. Turns out Natural Estrogen is fine and beneficial, particularly in the early stages of menopause. Emphasis on NATURAL Estrogen. Let's also not forget that this Cavity Cancer relationship study is conducted by JAMA. The same journal that published a similarly biased observational study on Estrogen (Heart and Estrogen-Progestin Replacement Study (HERS)) in the 1990s giving buzz to the Estrogen pills that were in 2002, clinically proven, to be completely false.
Confounding factors are in no way related to our founding fathers.
It may also be that people who take good care of their teeth, which includes regular dental checkups end up with more x-rays and more exposure to variety of viruses or bacteria which may be carcinogenic (such as HPV, cold sores). Another potential factor is carcinogenicity of the tooth care products, such as toothpastes and mouthwashes. These are couple possibilities that one wouldn't expect research by 'cavity industry' to consider.
Or, people with better dental hygiene and less cavities go with much more frequency to dentists, who nowadays won't touch you, even for simple cleaning, without taking X-rays.
Better link at PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24030728
Let's look at some other statistics from the National Cancer Institute
Head and neck cancers account for approximately 3 percent of all cancers in the United States. About 52000 diagnoses in the US in 2012.
- so we're talking about a kind of cancer that is fairly rare (compared to, say, lung, prostate or breast cancer). A 32% reduction in the rate is not a huge change in this context.
"At least 75 percent of head and neck cancers are caused by tobacco and alcohol use"
Hmm, think there's a possibility of confounding factors there?
The patients who died were from 1999 onwards..
Tricky study composition
"Those with a history of cancer, dysplasia, or immunodeficiency or who were younger than 21 years were excluded." Useful for the study, but means that statistics for the study aren't directly applicable to the general population, because people with head/neck cancer in real life often would have *other* cancers.
Interestingly, according to the abstract (the paper is behind a paywall) people who received dental care (crowns, endodontal (e.g. root canal)) had lower incidence of the cancer.
The hill folk in Deliverance were toothless and playing banjos. Maybe country music prevents cancer.
Nerds who live in Mom's Basement and never get out, just sit there drinking sugary drinks and eating junk food - versus healthy people who eat well, take care of their teeth, and have an active, outdoor lifestyle.
The former have many cavities and fewer instances of cancer owing to their indoor lifestyle. The latter has few or no cavities and more instances of cancer owing to their active, outdoor lifestyle.
Time and time again, research paid by tax payers is paywalled by parasites...err publishers. But nobody seems to care...
"Once fluoride is incorporated into the teeth of children, the problem of dental infection by decay-causing bacteria is solved, because the pH required to cause decay in teeth that have fluoride included is never achieved by the bacteria."
It doesn't work that way. I am a dentist and can guarantee you that even fluoride treated teeth and teeth with systemic fluoride incorporation can and do get cavities. I drill and fill them all day every day. Fluoride is only one factor in keeping teeth healthy. You still have to brush, floss, maintain a healthy diet, etc.
Just sayin...
Hmmm..I read another article, maybe right here, that showed a strong correlation between tooth and gum disease and heart disease and Alzheimer's.
Given the much lower baseline probability of head/brain cancer, I will continue to brush my teeth.
Floride is a carcinogen. Duh.
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident/pdf_zip/FLUORIDE070811.pdf
On the other hand, stop brushing your teeth and enjoy the heart attacks.
You completely missed the point. JAMA publishes scientific articles which are mis-reported in articles for average readers. JAMA does not try to stop the sensationalism.
People with more money tend to have better dental care.
People with more money tend to have better overall healthcare.
People with better healthcare tend to live longer.
People who live longer are more likely to eventually develop cancer.
Correlation is not causation.
I feel uncomfortable with what you said, "I am a dentist and can guarantee you that even fluoride treated teeth...", because you jumped away from the subject, which was people who had fluoride during their entire childhoods, not "fluoride treated teeth". My understanding is that people who have had fluoride applied externally get some benefits, but not the complete benefits, which are far greater.
If you felt a need to change the subject, maybe you know what you said is not reliable. For example, as a dentist, you have no way of knowing the history of a patient when the patient was a child, unless the parent tells you.
So, for example, maybe a child lived in an area with fluoridated water, but drank sodas, or fruit juice made with fruit from another area with no fluoride in the water.
My information comes from people who have not had trouble with their teeth, and who lived with fluoridated water. They were all from well-educated families, so they did not do things that would, to an educated person, seem obviously self-defeating.
Cavities don't protect against cancer. An interest side effect of not brushing your teeth allows an abundance of tumor slowing chemicals to be secreted by the extra bacteria in your mouth.
That's like seeing penicillin and saying "Eating rotten oranges with fungus on them is a cure for infectious disease!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
This is a disease (an inherited disease, perhaps like dental caries) that conveys a fitness against something else that is more serious.
You completely missed the point, as I said above. JAMA publishes scientific articles which are mis-reported in articles for average readers. JAMA does not try to stop the sensationalism and dishonesty in the reporting for the public. There is a financial interest for doctors in being presented as knowing far more than they do.
The link to the PDF file is at the bottom of the Slashdot story: Antimicrobial treatment, vaccination, or gene therapy against cariogenic bacteria.
I notice that you don't say if they are correct.
For some reason you have changed the subject to externally applied fluoride. I clearly said I was talking about fluoride internally ingested during the growth of a child's teeth, so that all the teeth have fluoride incorporated into the entire structure of the tooth, not just the outer layer, as you say.
Amazing that you say that! The discovery is presented a possible causation in the title: "Dental Caries May Protect Against Cancer".
Again, you have jumped away from the subject. The subject is that JAMA knows the problem of exaggeration and dishonesty in medical reporting exists, but does nothing to stop it.
Floride causes head and neck cancer.....
Rick B.
Are smokers likely to go in for more teeth cleaning and/or whitening treatments to remedy ugly teeth? Do they brush more to get rid of stains? That might explain the whole thing.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
ZOMG! All those conspiracy theorists were right. Fluoride in our drinking water was a communist plot to destroy the fabric of our nation!
-- Will program for bandwidth
When you were a child, did you live in an area where the water was fluoridated, either naturally, or by the city government?
Does that mean you allow dishonesty? Is it okay to promote "doctor's interests" against the common good? That's the entire issue.
This is my understanding: The effect of surrounding adult teeth with fluoride is beneficial, but that is a very weak effect compared to having fluoride incorporated into the entire structure of teeth because of drinking fluoridated water during childhood, as the adult teeth are being formed.
Consider the underlying issue: If you don't know that, and you are a dentist, it seems likely that you have been the target of lies. It is my perception that the American Medical Association, AMA, often acts for the greatest income for doctors, and not for the benefit of the public.
The Wikipedia article to which you linked contains a lot of language that appears to me to be designed to allow unnecessary doubt.
I went to a dentist recently with a staff that was promoting Xylitol, without the slightest understanding of the issues. There is another dentist I would like to have as my dentist, possibly, who has staff that lies about cleaning teeth. A woman who works in a dental clinic told me that there is a local organization that promotes dentists raising dental fees 8% each year.
Um. OK. I guess you folks missed my point (perhaps English is not YOUR first language), which is that fluoridated water is NOT a cure for all dental caries, as the previous poster claimed. I do know my patient's histories because I discuss it with each and every one of them. What I said is exactly what I meant. Simply drinking fluoridated water as a child is NOT sufficient to prevent ALL caries. It helps, but it does not replace the need to brush, floss, maintain a healthy diet, and get regular professional care.
I'm sure some of you are going to say "I never went to the dentist and I never had a cavity in my life." That happens rarely, but it happens, though I would ask how you know you never had a cavity if you never went to the dentist. I'm sure it means a lot to you rare cavity-free people, but a single data point is not statistically significant.
Add sugar to cigarettes. Problems solved.
IS the problem.
We're destroying the internal ecology we evolved with, and trying to develop drugs to treat symptoms that exacerbate the core problem.
Because modern medicine doesn't work. There have been no amazing new discoveries that translate into improving the lives of everybody for a long time now for a reason.