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

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.

Comments

Amm... printed Teeth?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Amm... printed Teeth?

[Mr D from 63]

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

Yeah, but then you can bite people without infecting them.

Re:Amm... printed Teeth?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

that is if they would even have children in the first place, why would they, if they are going to live forever

I didn't have kids because I'm going to die someday, I had kids because I wanted someone else to do the dishes.

Come on Slashdot..

[Rei]

... you can work 3d printing into a higher percentage of your stories than this. Here, let me help:

Experts Chime In To Explain Fukushima Thryoid Cancer Concerns; Possibility To 3D Print New Thyroids?
Samsung Demos PCIe NVMe SSD At 5.6 GB Per Second, 1 Million IOPS - Can Store Over 100k Printable 3D Models
DARPA Program Targets Image Doctoring, Hasn't Yet Tackled 3D Printed Duplicates
Oracle Fixes Java Vulnerability Used By Russian Cyberspies With 3D-Printed Keyboard We Assume Based On No Evidence
Should Japan Restart More Nuclear Power Plants And Retrofit Them With 3D-Printed Control Rods?
Only 8% of the Universe's Habitable Worlds Have Formed So Far; Remainder Awaiting Jumbo-Sized MakerBot.

Come on, Slashdot, you can do it!

Because evolution doesn't exist

[Maury Markowitz]

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.

Re:Because evolution doesn't exist

[DRJlaw]

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.

Re:Because evolution doesn't exist

[cdrudge]

I have a friend who's jaw bone became infected after bacteria decided to take up residence under some dental caps. She's been fighting for over 3 years to get things corrected and has had multiple surgeries where they peeled her gums back so that they could shave the bone down to remove the infection. This is in addition to needing to get new temporary caps every couple of months as she couldn't get her semi-permanent ones until the infection was completely cleared up.

She was really excited when I showed her an article about this technology several days ago not because it would help her with what she was going through, but some day it might help others not to have to go through what she went through.

The substance isn't suppose to take the place of regular dental hygiene, or to kill off everything. But if it can help kill off bacteria in hard to reach/clean locations which is pretty common with implants and braces, then that's a good thing.

Re:Because evolution doesn't exist

[Maury Markowitz]

> 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.

Mooted: who knew?

[rmdingler]

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.

Re:Mooted: who knew?

[Trailer Trash]

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.

Re:Mooted: who knew?

[Scottingham]

I don't think these teeth would kill off all the bacteria in the mouth. It would just prevent them from adhering to the tooth itself to cause trouble.

It's the other 1% that you have to worry about

[Chrisq]

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.

Microbiome

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Organisms will adapt

[mysidia]

..... 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.