The world's first human trial of a drug that can regenerate teeth will begin in a few months, less than a year on from news of its success in animals. This paves the way for the medicine to be commercially available as early as 2030.
This probably isn’t going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they’re researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they’re not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.
We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for clinical trials (adult males).
Which isn’t too unexpected. Having it as an IV treatment would mean it’s not targeted. I don’t understand how something like that could replace individual teeth that were damaged, and not just didn’t grow because of a lack of something in the body.
If I had to guess (not being a toothologist), I’d think there would have to be some sort of injection, or implant, to trigger an individual tooth replacement.
It’s well outside my field so I’m definitely not qualified to answer that, but the trials seem to be building on this study so that might give more insight.
It’s not my area of expertise (oral cancer), but I can guess.
Some authors have proposed that in humans there may be a third set of tooth organs on which this drug could be used. This theory could explain why some people get supernumerary (extra) teeth–in most people these extra organs appear to regress but in some contexts maybe they don’t. From what I can tell (again, not quite my expertise) there is not a scientific consensus on the presence or prevalence of this third set of teeth in humans or specifically human adults, which is why this treatment is primarily focused on those people whose teeth never formed–ostensibly their first or second set of tooth buds may still be present and just need to be triggered to develop.
Even if we assume that adult humans have a third set of tooth buds on which this drug could act (and that’s questionable), giving the drug in IV form would probably just make all of the buds grow, which would be problematic. But that could be reasonable for a person for whom few or no teeth had grown.
This probably isn’t going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they’re researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they’re not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.
Which isn’t too unexpected. Having it as an IV treatment would mean it’s not targeted. I don’t understand how something like that could replace individual teeth that were damaged, and not just didn’t grow because of a lack of something in the body.
If I had to guess (not being a toothologist), I’d think there would have to be some sort of injection, or implant, to trigger an individual tooth replacement.
Thanks for going deeper. Any chance you could answer why? Why is it’s use limited?
It’s well outside my field so I’m definitely not qualified to answer that, but the trials seem to be building on this study so that might give more insight.
It’s not my area of expertise (oral cancer), but I can guess.
Some authors have proposed that in humans there may be a third set of tooth organs on which this drug could be used. This theory could explain why some people get supernumerary (extra) teeth–in most people these extra organs appear to regress but in some contexts maybe they don’t. From what I can tell (again, not quite my expertise) there is not a scientific consensus on the presence or prevalence of this third set of teeth in humans or specifically human adults, which is why this treatment is primarily focused on those people whose teeth never formed–ostensibly their first or second set of tooth buds may still be present and just need to be triggered to develop.
Even if we assume that adult humans have a third set of tooth buds on which this drug could act (and that’s questionable), giving the drug in IV form would probably just make all of the buds grow, which would be problematic. But that could be reasonable for a person for whom few or no teeth had grown.
Came here to look for this comment - bad science communication is the reigning supreme it would seem these days
deleted by creator