Before getting that tooth implant look at this....
 

Seems to be ready for human testing.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1208510,00.html

That will be hard to determine which teeth they will form - you obviously don't want a molar as a front tooth. I wonder if the Dental Association will allow this stuff without "extensive" testing and then it will be ruled a hazard - think about the business that this will take away from.

Wow. That is really interesting. And once again shows why the curernt administration's policies on stem cell use are just downright wrong. Though it's not addressed in the article, it is clear that US companies are being prevented from taking the lead on some of this stuff due to W.


The procedure is fairly simple. Doctors take stem cells from the patient. These are unique in their ability to form any of the tissues that make up the body. By carefully nurturing the stem cells in a laboratory, scientists can nudge the cells down a path that will make them grow into a tooth. After a couple of weeks, the ball of cells, known as a bud, is ready to be implanted. Tests reveal what type of tooth - for example, a molar or an incisor - the bud will form.

Using a local anaesthetic, the tooth bud is inserted through a small incision into the gum. Within months, the cells will have matured into a fully-formed tooth, fused to the jawbone. As the tooth grows, it releases chemicals that encourage nerves and blood vessels to link up with it.

I don't see how it will take away. People will still be getting the (most likely) cheaper denture alternatives. They do now as opposed to expensive implants. And these new teeth will still get cavities and may require "straightening".

I believe the policy is for Fetal stem cell research.

But that's not what is mentioned in the news clip. They mention the "patient's" Stem cells.

The stem cells that are not yet destined to a particular function in the body are found in a fetus or in a newborn (umbilical cord cells). These are the best to start with. This is why freezing the umbilcal cord is a popular procedure as it helps insure the future treatment options for the child.

Am I wrong here?

great timing...I popped off a crown while flossing Saturday. Dentist visit soon...:(

Hmm, you could very well be right about that. In that case - never mind. :D

I don't pretend to have a lot of medical knowledge, and I was not aware that the policy distinguishes between sources of the cells. I thought that there were a certain number of genetic "lines" that were approved for use in the USA, but that there were an insufficient number of lines to do all research US companies want to do. And that using any other cells was prohibited. I should research a little more and find out, I guess.

Regenerating teeth will create a problem in dentistry in my opinion because dentists will no longer have to fill cavities or perform in-depth procedures when a tooth can be regenerated. One would still want to care for their teeth but if a replacement is available, I am sure this will be the better choice than dentures etc. Also, only certain dentists will have access to this type of technology until it becomes a mainstream thing and as a result it will be very expensive as was laser eye surgery a few years ago. The United States is behind some countries with respect to medical advances. And what is it with the British and teeth - is it from all the tea they drink??

I see it differently. I think this procedure is way too radical to use as treatment for a cavity. I just see this as another treatment in the dentist's aresenal. I do agree that many may forego proactive measures to prevent tooth loss.

You'd think that anyone would choose an implant over a bridge or dentures today but the cost prevents many from getting the implant as it's deemed cosmetic and is not typically covered by standard plans.

With an implant, once it's in there never will be anymore pain.

It's called socialized medicine. Why should you have teeth that are better than anyone else's? ;)

Crest should make a fortune over there with their white strips.

Which ones?

I believe Sweden is one such country that uses newer technology than the US. The US is one of the largest and greatest countries for medical advancement and teaching but I feel that it takes a great deal of time for advances to reach us.

You have it pretty much backwards. The United States contributions to modern medical science are fueled by the huge profit potential in medical devices and pharmaceuticals. What slows deployment of new technology is liability. New technologies are developed here, implemented in Europe then brought back across the pond after they have an established safety record.

The lastest...and best...fillings are the natural color composites and which aren't made of 1/4 mercury which is pressed into a blood vessel less than 9 inches from the brain.....

Sniff....anyways.... it only took several decades after the science was known for the policy to go into effect. So avoid the silver fillings.

Mr. Bobbit wonders "If they can grow a tooth, I wonder if they can adapt the technology...".

Moses, I agree with you in that many medical items are developed here and first implemented overseas as a result of liability. However, my statement is that the Sweden is among many nations that have contributed to medical and other technological advances in the world and they have also implemented some of this technology before the United States has. An example is in this month's Popular Mechanics - the Japanese are using robots to help care for the elederly. I have not seen or heard anything similiar to this in the US however that doesn't mean that it has not been tried. Another example when I was Sweden this past summer I learned of a major waterway in Stockholm that had been so polluted that not even seaweed could survive but they built large purifiers and over the past 10 years they have returned this lake close to its original form.

Also with respect to medical, many doctors worldwide come here to work on these advancements because of the capabilities that the US has to offer.

First, I would love to take advantage of this technology. Why? I've had a permanent bridge in my mouth for the past 20 years (tooth broke off at gumline...sigh)! Yes, it's better than a removable bridge, but still it takes more work to maintain than the real thing. I looonnng for a real tooth. However, will I ever live long enougn to benefit by this technology. Not a chance. Where do we begin. Cost? Yup. Ask Delta Dental or Concordia if they'll support this. Not a chance. That means probably $20K out of pocket. Next FDA. How long does it take to get a new drug appoved...ones you can buy right now in Europe or Canada. How about the ADA....think they'll jump right in....perhaps, if it means another payment on the Mercedes (er...or Porsche). The point is, I expect to long dead and buried before this is approved and is affordable in the States.

I think it's B.S. Where exactly are they getting undifferentiated (stem) cells from an adult patient? Smells like a scam to me.