People with missing teeth may be able to grow new ones, say Japanese dentists testing a pioneering drug they hope will offer an alternative to dentures and implants.
I’m kind of curious if this would work if you already have implants. With those being screwed into the bone would it do enough damage to prevent growing a tooth in that location?
This is my thought, and why I really want to know what needs to still exist for this technology to be viable before I decide on if I want a molar pulled.
The article seems to imply the drug works on a dormant bud of a 3rd set of teeth that mammals have but which don’t normally develop into teeth…but I don’t know how accurate that is. Do you really need the original tissue with the bud, or is possible to encourage ordinary gum or bone cells at a location to turn into a bud that this technology then works on?
Definitely will have implications on how it’s best to go about with tooth extractions and implants for anyone hoping this tooth technology will mature within their lifetimes.
I’m young enough that it’s very possible with this research that my cohort will be the first group of seniors that never get dentures, but instead get new teeth grown. And my hope that it will become like Lasik was for eyes–commonplace enough that little tooth-regrowing clinics pop up everywhere. Like, I know it’s popular to think only the richest will be able to afford it…but a part of me suspects the sheer number of poor people who will clamor for this will mean they can make their profit in quantity rather than charging huge prices to rich people. Poor people are more likely to lose teeth, after all. There’s more of a demand for this technology among that demographic.
Do you really need the original tissue with the bud, or is possible to encourage ordinary gum or bone cells at a location to turn into a bud that this technology then works on?
I think in the latter case the risk of developing cancer may be higher than if there are already cells in your jaw that can develop into teeth
I’m kind of curious if this would work if you already have implants. With those being screwed into the bone would it do enough damage to prevent growing a tooth in that location?
This is my thought, and why I really want to know what needs to still exist for this technology to be viable before I decide on if I want a molar pulled.
The article seems to imply the drug works on a dormant bud of a 3rd set of teeth that mammals have but which don’t normally develop into teeth…but I don’t know how accurate that is. Do you really need the original tissue with the bud, or is possible to encourage ordinary gum or bone cells at a location to turn into a bud that this technology then works on?
Definitely will have implications on how it’s best to go about with tooth extractions and implants for anyone hoping this tooth technology will mature within their lifetimes.
I’m young enough that it’s very possible with this research that my cohort will be the first group of seniors that never get dentures, but instead get new teeth grown. And my hope that it will become like Lasik was for eyes–commonplace enough that little tooth-regrowing clinics pop up everywhere. Like, I know it’s popular to think only the richest will be able to afford it…but a part of me suspects the sheer number of poor people who will clamor for this will mean they can make their profit in quantity rather than charging huge prices to rich people. Poor people are more likely to lose teeth, after all. There’s more of a demand for this technology among that demographic.
I think in the latter case the risk of developing cancer may be higher than if there are already cells in your jaw that can develop into teeth