Plaque-busting Nanoparticles Could Help Fight Tooth Decay

sciencehabit writes: Nanotechnology might soon save you a trip to the dentist. Researchers have developed tiny sphere-shaped particles that ferry a payload of bacteria-slaying drugs to the surface of the teeth, where they fight plaque and tooth decay on the spot (abstract). The approach could also be adapted to combat other plaquelike substances, known as biofilms, such as those that form on medical devices like orthopedic implants.

Comments

How about cutting sugar*

[ruir]

Much like the tobacco industry in the 60s, the sugar industry has been lobbying right and left for not be of medical advice on the open to cut out on sweets, unlike it is done for alcohol and tobacco nowadays. Be proactive. It is far cheaper too.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

Native Americans did not have problems with tooth decay until they learned how to cultivate corn and significantly increased their intake of sugars.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

Native Americans didn't live long enough for tooth decay to be a serious problem, so your point is kind of moot.

All too often, when discussing the many chronic diseases (diabetes, obesity, hypertension, heart disease, many cancers, and yes, dental caries) that appeared to be mostly absent in hunter-gatherer populations but are rampant among 'civilized' populations, many people dismiss such observations by rationalizing that because these populations had much lower life expectancy *at birth* then therefore *nobody* in those populations lived long enough to develop these diseases.

But that is clearly not the case. Look at the data for life expectancy by age for the US from 1850-2011. Yes, life expectancy at birth was nearly half what it is now but the gap narrows considerably if you survived past 20. That is to say, most of the increase in life expectancy at birth comes from curing the childhood illnesses from which many died very young. And while far fewer people lived to 90-100 than now, living into the 70s-80s was not exactly uncommon.

Also, note that the link you provided shows that life expectancy at birth dropped significantly as hunter-gatherers progressed towards agriculture. The archeological evidence suggests that as early cultures adopted agriculture they became smaller in stature, had many more dental issues, and likely died younger overall. Jared Diamond details the evidence in his well-known book, Guns Germs and Steel.

It is also well documented that the doctors like Albert Schweitzer who treated the dwindling number of remaining hunter-gatherer populations in the late 19th/early 20th centuries observed very few cases of the "chronic diseases of civilization" as they came to be known, even among the oldest people in those communities, and far lower rates than could be explained by "they just don't live long enough." Yet soon after adopting western diets and/or lifestyles, they would develop these illnesses at similar rates as western populations.

So I guess only if you ignore the vast amount of evidence that counters the "didn't live long enough" hypothesis, the question might be moot, otherwise maybe you should keep your mind open to alternative explanations.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

I think you've over-thought my post, I was mostly making a snarky response to the nonsensical argument that sugar is the problem. :)

It's hard for me to get worked up about sugar. Want to talk about heart disease and attribute it to our sugar intake? I have a single word response: exercise. Regarding dental caries, studies suggest that only 10% to 40% of the population flosses on a regular basis. The variation depends on how you define 'regular', but the 'never flosses' group is invariably >50% of the population. Flossing comes with health benefits that extend outside of the mouth and makes you more attractive to potential mates (as does exercise) but most people can't be bothered.

Society has an obsession with sugar that has gotten out of hand, in my not so humble opinion. I've read articles written by MDs condemning the intake of fruit juices, in Runner's World of all publications! That's a magazine aimed at distance runners, do you really think that a few glasses of orange juice are a problem for that population? "Reduce your intake of fruit juice to lose weight!" Umm, fuck you, I'm running 20+ miles a week, I'll drink as much orange juice as I want. I may even have a soda. :) (I actually hate soda, but you get the idea....)

Since you brought it up, I don't dispute the "diseases of civilization" hypothesis, it's certainly true on the macroscopic scale of western civilization. On the individual level though? I don't buy it. There are things one can do to manage the "risks" of civilization, starting with exercise and sensible dietary choices. The people that don't do these things, well, that's their loss. They're still better off than they would be in a hunter-gatherer society.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[sackvillian]

But that is clearly not the case. Look at the data for life expectancy by age for the US from 1850-2011. [infoplease.com] Yes, life expectancy at birth was nearly half what it is now but the gap narrows considerably if you survived past 20. That is to say, most of the increase in life expectancy at birth comes from curing the childhood illnesses from which many died very young. And while far fewer people lived to 90-100 than now, living into the 70s-80s was not exactly uncommon.

What makes you think that the same trend applied to hunter-gatherers? The lifestyle of those born in 1850 likely has no resemblance to the lifestyle of hunter-gatherers.

Next question -- ever consider that maybe the roughly 50% of people who died around or before age 20 may be a population that's much more vulnerable to "chronic diseases of civilization"? Maybe the reason there weren't many type-2 diabetics or sufferers of congestive heart failure in their 50s is because the people most prone to such diseases were long since in their graves.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[slimjim8094]

I used to think like you, but the fact of the matter is that most animals simply don't get cavities. Seriously! I mean, their teeth are very capable of getting cavities, but haven't you wondered why humans have teeth that "go bad" without regular maintenance? Have you ever known a dog to floss? The idea that all calories are equal is a tempting one, especially to engineer-types like myself, but it doesn't seem to be true.

Eating simple sugars is quite rare in the animal world, and presumably primitive humans. We like them so much because they are simple, high-density sources of energy compared to extracting a few calories from some nuts and greens. An early human would get as much as they could - which wasn't very much at all. But we are not set up to mostly run on them to the extent that we try today, and I think the evidence on that is increasingly clear. It's not necessarily simply a question of physical fitness, though it's true that that will probably mitigate many of the downsides like weight gain. The input matters, and calories and nutrients are not necessarily fungible - it doesn't go without saying that getting all your calories and nutrients via soda and multivitamins (and I guess fiber pills) is equivalent to e.g. a balanced diet of vegetables and protein even if the caloric and vitamin content is exactly the same. This of course ignores the fact that it is far, far easier to blow through your calorie budget with high-density foodstuffs.

It is a hard problem to solve. The basic problem is that our favorite foods bear no relation to foods that we should be eating, which was fine when the only foods there were to eat (mostly) *were* the foods we should be eating - or vice versa, the foods that are good for us are the ones that we evolved to eat. But we have an artificial abundance of the foods we really like, but didn't used to be able to get in common practice.

And for the record, I eat like a pig, am overweight, etc (though I'm working on it now that I have time). I do not practice the "paleo" fad diet and think most of its claims are bogus. But even though we don't know much about what "primitive" people actually ate, we do know that simple sugars are rare in nature unless artificially grown. Humans are clearly quite adaptable when it comes to diet... but perhaps not infinitely adaptable. We already know that trans fats are shockingly bad, for instance. Perhaps this applies to simple sugar as well - both are found in nature, although much much more rarely than we have been using them. If for no reason other than calories, most people would be better off eating no sugar at all - which would make it much harder to have stupendously high calorie diets.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[ChrisMaple]

Tooth decay starts early. A great deal of it occurs before puberty, during which time children crave sweets and haven't really gotten the knack of good teeth brushing. Optimistically, 42% of Americans have had a cavity by age 11.

The idea that primitives don't live long enough to have tooth decay problems is silly.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

but the fact of the matter is that most animals simply don't get cavities. Seriously! I mean, their teeth are very capable of getting cavities, but haven't you wondered why humans have teeth that "go bad" without regular maintenance? Have you ever known a dog to floss?

Have you ever actually owned a dog or a cat? Every one I've ever had eventually developed problems with their teeth as they aged, usually ending with the tooth in question needing to be pulled. You don't even need my personal anecdote, it's right here at the top of a Google search: While dental caries is not common in the domestic pet, it does occur and should be watched for.

The idea that all calories are equal is a tempting one

I didn't claim that all calories are equal, I said that exercise and flossing are more effective ways to improve health than obsessing about sugar intake.

And for the record, I eat like a pig, am overweight, etc (though I'm working on it now that I have time).

Now that you have time?! Thank you for proving my point that most people just can't be bothered. It's your bloody life we're talking about and your excuse for being a fat ass is "I didn't have the time?" You couldn't find three hours a week to go for a fucking walk? That's only 25 minutes a day. I really hate that weak ass excuse. Blame your proclivity for eating, I'm a foodie, I'd understand that, eating is one of the best pleasures of the flesh.

The time excuse is bogus. I have friends that manage to work full time, raise kids, and train for marathons, a commitment that requires running 15 to 40 miles a week. We've had several athletic presidents, including complete fitness nuts, all of whom found the time to maintain their health despite the office. I highly doubt that your obligations are more time consuming than those of the President of the United States.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

I was merely using that as an illustration to counter the common misconception that lower life expectancy at birth in a population equates to no one growing old enough to experience diseases that become more common with age. That data clearly indicates otherwise, not to mention that anthropologists who studied the last remaining hunter-gather societies do note that they did indeed have people who lived to ripe old ages.

As to your hypothesis that younger people were dying of diabetes and heart disease, no I haven't considered it because there is zero evidence I've ever seen of it. We have over a century's worth of well documented medical evidence that shows that it is infectious diseases, particularly those eradicated by vaccines, that caused that vast majority of infant/child mortality. Do you have even a shred of evidence that it was caused by chronic diseases? I doubt it.

I Am Crest, of Procter & Gamble....

[Shakrai]

.... resistance, is futile. Dental caries, as you know them, are over. From this time forward, your teeth will service us......

Re:I Am Crest, of Procter & Gamble....

[ArcadeMan]

Could the Borg really defeat Tooth Decay?

Re:I Am Crest, of Procter & Gamble....

[binarylarry]

Insurance is Futile.

Re:What about gut bacteria?

[ArcadeMan]

Here's an idea: don't swallow the toothpaste?

Re:What about gut bacteria?

[Shakrai]

You realize you missed the perfect opportunity for a Dr. Strangelove reference, right? The industrial flood complex has teamed up with the American Dental Association to contaminate his precious bodily fluids. Bastards.....

Re:Human toxicity

[rubycodez]

We gave it to 200 test subjects and not a one complained over the two year course of the study. Also, their corpses curiously did not decompose.

Re:What about gut bacteria?

[dbIII]

But we have to keep our teeth and gums healthy or face other systemic risks

The link between gum problems and heart problems is especially weird, and having an infected tooth in the upper jaw is uncomfortably close to bits that keep us alive.

Re:xylitol

[TeknoHog]

And it'll give you the runs, just like other sugar alcohols.

And that's why everyone in Finland (where the use of xylitol for dental care was pioneered) has chronic diarrhea. No, wait, we don't, not with the recommended small amounts.