Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3D-Printed Teeth Can Kill 99% of Dental Bacteria (thestack.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the cleanest-mouth dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A research group in the Netherlands has developed a new plastic resin that can destroy most dental bacteria when used for the creation of dental appliances via 3D-printing. The process involves embedding antimicrobial quaternary ammonium salts inside extant dental resin polymers. Since the salts are positively charged, these disrupt negatively-charged bacterial membranes. The process is also being mooted for use in the creation of knee arthroplasties, and in the manufacture of children's toys and food packaging.

9 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Amm... printed Teeth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think by the time you *need* printed teeth, the bacteria pretty much has done its thing.

  2. Because evolution doesn't exist by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This technique will clearly work forever, because we all know that bacteria populations do not evolve to take advantage of useful niches when other populations wane.

    After all, there's no real advantage to taking over a nice warm, wet, mobile and highly interacting environment that accounts for a large percentage of the entire planet's land mammal biomass.

    1. Re:Because evolution doesn't exist by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This technique will clearly work forever, because we all know that bacteria populations do not evolve to take advantage of useful niches when other populations wane.

      Since you clearly will not live forever, why do you even bother?

      *beat pause*

      Exactly...

      That's why they're developing this material. It's still better than the alternative.

    2. Re:Because evolution doesn't exist by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > It's still better than the alternative.

      No no no, we definitely do NOT know that. Wiping out one population makes way for others that will definitely take up the niche. Those are currently being outcompeted by the existing population, but if you kill that off, that 1% remaining gets the whole thing to itself. This is what drives evolution.

      So the question is, and always should be, whether or not those 1% are more benign *to us* than the 99% we currently have. Bacteria don't measure their success based on what happens to us, only what happens to them. Its very possible that the ones that are unsuccessful against other bacteria are perfectly successful in attacking us.

      You have to be careful with these things, as the continual stream of stories right here on /. note. We have been putting anti-bacterial crap in everything around us, and now we are seeing the outcome of those decisions. Are we better off than in 1940? Absolutely yes. Are we better off than 1985? That is highly debatable.

  3. Mooted: who knew? by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I would suggest weighing the long range effects of a bactericidal compound versus the perceived benefits of some form of germ free existence.

    The role(s) played by bacteria in the ecosystem that is a mammalian body are even now not completely understood...

    and microorganisms show a valiant ability to evolve around attempts to exterminate them.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Mooted: who knew? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would suggest weighing the long range effects of a bactericidal compound versus the perceived benefits of some form of germ free existence.

      The role(s) played by bacteria in the ecosystem that is a mammalian body are even now not completely understood...

      and microorganisms show a valiant ability to evolve around attempts to exterminate them.

      This is what I came to say. We have 10x as many bacterial cells in our bodies as human cells, as bacteria are far smaller. We absolutely need them. They help us digest our food. They live on our skin. Probably a part of the reason we don't get infected often is that our friendly bacteria are able to fight off bad ones.

      Our mouth bacteria have evolved along with us. Yeah, they hurt our teeth if we leave food in there. But they have no evolutionary incentive to harm us. I don't want to kill the bacteria in my mouth as something far more sinister might be able to take up residence. Beyond that, I don't know what other advantages they might be giving me and I'd rather not find out the hard way.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
  4. It's the other 1% that you have to worry about by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the other 1% that you have to worry about. Seriously, killing 99% of the mouth bacteria could leave the way for a harmful partially resistant bacteria to multiply, like c difficile can do in people treated with antibiotics.

  5. Microbiome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have a lot of bacteria in our gut that, as it turns out, are quite beneficial and even necessary to our well-being. I would be surprised if killing 99% of dental bacteria does not come with ill effects.

  6. Organisms will adapt by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..... for use in the creation of knee arthroplasties, and in the manufacture of children's toys and food packaging.

    The manufacture of kids toys and packaging is a ridiculous and wasteful usage for an anti-bacterial product.

    The more common things you put this in.... the more organisms are likely to adapt so that this method is no longer beneficial, assuming the resources (such as food) exist for organisms to survive.

    It's best to allow the use of anti-bio technologies in only limited applications where it is truly beneficial, so you minimize the effects of natural selection.

    Otherwise, you will again have things growing on this new type of surface, and so it will most likely be rendered ineffective at some point in the future.