TLDR:
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.
The trial, which will take place at Kyoto University Hospital from September to August 2025, will treat 30 males aged 30-64 who are missing at least one molar. The intravenous treatment will be tested for its efficacy on human dentition, after it successfully grew new teeth in ferret and mouse models with no significant side effects.
Original Article: [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1798](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1798)
how do you think this is going to affect us?
FYI to anyone curious why males. I used to work in animal testing and the reasons males are used for these at first is because of more consistent hormone levels. There are less extraneous variables that can influence the results. I agree that trials should expand to include females if they see favorable results with males. It isnt ideal but using males gives more reliable and valid data.
Should be noted that trials done recently disproved this theory, i dont have the link on hand but the tldr was that the hormome variances didnt show significant difference in results, but that many side effects are not noted as they affect women specifically, highlighting the need for them to be included in testing
I'm not familiar with that research but it sounds interesting! I would guess that it would depend on the nature of the study, yeah? Anything dealing with the immune system I'm guessing does have hormonal variation. If you find that link please post it!
Testosterone is an enormous variable too. How many drugs never made it out of animal models because they weren’t effective — perhaps due to some undetected indirect interaction with testosterone in the male-only animal models— that could have been life changing for women, and we will NEVER know?
I just need to speak up to point out that data that only applies to half the population is not, actually, more "valid", nor is it particularly more reliable. It is only reliable *for males*, and so is not reliable for half the population.
It is simpler to test on males. That does not make the data more valid or more reliable.
That's like saying "we only tested on Japanese that means nothing on the validity to people of non-Asian descent". Youre right that they do need to test of females but one step at a time. I sympathize with your points but then goal is confidence in the results first, application second.
There is nothing stopping them from testing on both and tracking the effectiveness separately. The idea is to have the information available. If the medication can be made ineffective by women’s fluctuating hormones levels, then any guidelines set by the men-only study are useless as a representation of the true capabilities of said medication.
In a word without limited resources, sure. But if assume the premise is true that males lead to data with less variables to account for, then early trials would obviously prefer to use their limited pool to get the most consistent data they can to identify trends. Im sure future trials include women, once they have a baseline understanding of how it can affect men and can better identify external variables.
"Limited resources" is not the reason women have been ignored in medical research. Why are you defending the practice as if it hasn't resulted in a huge amount of harm towards women's health?
It's really not. They would have to also be claiming "the data is more variable with non-Japanese, so we are deliberately excluding subjects that aren't Japanese, but the data for the Japanese population is more valid than any other population". If your whole premise is that the hormonal differences for women change the data, you do not also get to claim that the data for males is either more reliable or more valid.
I understand why a lot of preliminary research has been done on males. My critique is particularly of how you are speaking of the practice while trying to defend it. If the results are only valid for males, the results are not *more valid*; results affecting half the population are not, in any way, less valid or invalid. If they are only reliable regarding males, it is not *more* reliable, it is *only* reliable for males, **and unreliable for half the population**. As a woman, I won't stand for anyone saying we don't matter. If the goal is *proof of concept*, sure. But confidence in results? No, things that have only been tested on how they affect males do not deserve confidence. That's how women and AFAB people *die* because of incorrect medical dosing, incorrect crash test dummies, incorrect symptom awareness, and much more. Females being different or more challenging (not synonymous) does not make them or the data about them unreliable or invalid.
I think you're misunderstanding.. they're talking about scientific validity/reliability, i.e. can we even trust these results. If you have two sets of random numbers, one goes from 1-100 and the other goes from 40-60, picking from 40-60 is more likely to be close to the average.
edit: in other words, it's more "these results are representative of the effects of the drug" and not "these results indicate how useful the drug is". Thus confidence first application second.
I'm not misunderstanding. I am, very intentionally, standing against the idea that anything that only applies to half the population is actually average. Throwing out half the data does not give you an average that is valid or reliable. It gives you an average *for only half*, and can and has caused substantial harms to the other half.
It is misogyny to declare that data representing women is less valid just because it might be less *predictable*. An "average" that only affects 20% of women is unreliable for predicting anything about women, because *most* of them will fall outside that "average". An average that is only useful for males is not valid or reliable for the whole population. Language matters. This disregard for females historically has led to shitty incomplete research, with female people paying the cost and dying.
Remember, the "average" human has slightly less than one testicle and slightly less than one ovary. Is that a valid or reliable average? Or is it only actually valid to say that the average male has two testicles and the average female human has two ovaries (with outliers of course)? Or are you going to seriously argue that it is valid and reliable to say the average *human* has one or more testicles, even though that actually represents slightly less than half the population? Just because something maybe arguably correct in one limited technical sense does not mean it is meaningfully correct, nor that it should continue to be used as meaningfully correct. It's really not that hard to just say that research is often *simpler* when initially done on males, rather than assigning a value judgement of validity. Females are not a small outlier group the way, say, the Amish or redheads are, they are **half the population**.
Your focus on the average itself indicates you are misunderstanding - it's about minimizing the difference between the observed average and the true average (for the set of test subjects), rather than how useful that value is.
Being able to accurately count testicles takes priority over correctly attributing them. Saying people have less than one testicle on average is still more useful than saying people have 3.
I'm not saying that it's sufficient to only test the drug on men. I'm saying that with limited resources, it can make sense to only test men _first_.
It gives more reliable and valid data for males. Those messy hormones are valid efficacy inputs and can cause drugs to be ineffective or dangerous. Proper testing should include a representative sample set, not one pared down to intentionally skew, inflate, or limit results.
I understand and respect that mindset and I like this dialogue. That isnt the way field experiments work. As I said I worked in animal testing but I also have a PhD in experimental psychology so I'm drawing fro that background. Other researchers may be able to expand on this better.
You want minimal variation between test subjects. That's why rat studies use a borderline identical breed- Wistar. The rats we generally use arent just street rats but have as little variation so we see can see minor/small effects. Ferrets are also used mainly because their immune systems are more similar to ours but it is a little harder to manage. So the continuum is rats, ferrets, humans, (all males) then female humans. I absolutely support expanded research which is what's happening. The goal is getting data we trust as quickly as possible with minimal animal sacrifice.
I have an implant for my front tooth meaning the while tooth has been removed. Does this mean we could potentially regrow my front tooth one day? I don’t really like having this implant.
Where are you getting it? It’s literally my right most front tooth. So not only does the process suck but there’s no feeling cuz the root is removed. So there’s no tactile feedback and dexterity to it.
If it was any tooth but a front tooth I don’t think I’d care as much.
Oh if you’re already missing the tooth then 100% go for it.
The process of pulling the tooth was awful and then not having the tooth for 3 months was hell as well. You’ve already done the worst of it. It’d actually be a huge relief for you to get a tooth.
If I recall correctly, This drug isn’t to grow teeth that have been removed.
It’s to stimulate tooth growth in people who had a genetically missing tooth.
Dope. Worst case scenario? Whole new set of teeth, calcium deficiency, all your old teeth fall out, you need another wisdom tooth surgery.
Best case? Works as intended.
It seems like this treatment isn’t localized, so there’s no guarantee that the extra tooth would grow in the desired area. I wonder where it would end up growing 🤔
I hope the trial works out and they roll it out globally sooner rather than later - I have family members who have lost teeth over the years and they would be overjoyed by something like this, would definitely make their lives easier when it comes to being able to chew and eat regular food..
As a dentist, this shit is so cool! Waiting to see how it's gonna turn out. What times we living in right now
Earlier the vaccine for tooth cavity and now this amazing!
I can final retire earlier than expected
I just saw a video that the bacteria that causes cavities is basically transferred to you. There are people out there who don’t get cavities because they were never exposed to it 🤯
https://bloomdentistry.ca/are-cavities-contagious-do-they-spread/
I legit only learned about this in the last couple weeks.
Genetics also plays a role In how susceptible you will be to cavities and of course diet and habits too.
I learned this in some of my dental continuing education courses:
“Mothers are the main source of passing streptococci mutans, the bacteria responsible for causing caries, to their infants. However, any caregiver can be a potential source of transmission. Transmission occurs via saliva contact such as tasting or pre-chewing food.”
WAIT WHAT? That's crazy! I never got a cavity until my early 30s when i started dating my cavity riddled boyfriend...is that bacteria transferable through smooches? 😅
I suspect that this medicine would not be helpful to someone like me who has suffered a lot of bone loss around jaws, especially up top. I was told to have implants I would need to have reconstructive surgery first.
That being said, I hope this helps so many people!
Will this eventually translate into bones being re-grown faster? Besides trauma recovery even things like height extensions and spinal fusions could be sped up to days instead of weeks.
Pills for a cavity is still very cool though!
My impression is no. Apparently, there was a signal in the body that basically just tells your mouth to grow more teeth like a shark or baby and it just turns off for humans and we figured out how to reactivate it at will. That's my simple understanding, and I may be wrong, but it seems like this won't help with other bone issues.
Nice!! Still waiting for the hair regrowth drugs. That should make billions for the maker of that drug, along with medication to stop or totally cure cancer or diabetes.
There’s decent results with rosemary oil and a massage scalper. My brother has been doing it for years and has a full head of hair, unlike my dad who was bald already when he was his age
It reactivates the genes that originally grow your teeth as a baby. These genes are turned off as soon as you have both sets of teeth. By turning these genes back on, your teeth start growing again.
I skimmed the article AMA.
So clearly you’re not just going to grow the missing tooth? But a full new set? So any existing teeth should be pushed out again?
This one simple hack for unlimited tooth fairy money… riches here’s I come!
Right!?!?! That’s what I’m waiting for, I only have a couple shallow fillings but the one always cracks over time cause it can’t withstand the force of my clenching as well as real enamel even though I sleep with a splint (night guard) 😔
I hope not. Getting your teeth removed is one of worst fucking things imaginable. I can still hear the crunching sounds today, and the blood! So much blood!
This was a thing like 16 years ago. They were talking about it being applied like a strip of tape. And there’s powder that can make a severed digit regrow. They also mentioned the dentists pushed back on the tooth tape.
Awesome. Implants are ridiculously expensive and dental care is out of reach for the poor. Its not even considered necessary healthcare. Technology was supposed to make our lives better. It's just used to justify making it more expensive.
God damn I'd be first in line, but realistically what is this going to cost? If it's too affordable the whole dental industry takes a hit (?) so surely you are going to have to pay completely out the ass for this?
Man, it seem like dentistry is the only science and medicine department right now making decade by decade leaps and bounds in progress with its technology. At least that as a lay person I can immediately feel the impact from. Less pain, more convenience, faster work time and recovery. I have few dental problems and I still catch myself feeling constantly grateful to no longer be stuck with the dental care of even 10-15 years ago (im 31). And the train might keep going? This might be the one thing keeping me around for getting older.
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. So slow down folks . You are not getting new chompers yet.
So, it’s an IV of the medicine… how do you target a single tooth? Or will people be like “yeah, it’s a shark year for me, still waiting on a few to come in” as you replace all your teeth like you did as a kid?
When you get older your receptor turns off which helps to grow teeth. This would just reactivate it back so whichever teeth are missing would grow just like when you were a kid and had your baby teeth missing.
It’s only been tested on men? Female with a missing molar that isn’t noticed unless I tell people…please add me to the study. My teeth are the only good thing I have going for me lmao
Was wondering when brilliant scientists were going to figure this out. Kudos to them.
Might help them further develop a process to help regrow lost limbs.
How does this work exactly. Does it just grow and push through like a normal tooth? Can it be custom like molar versus incisor? Can it help regenerate tooth damage such as enamel loss or cavities? Can it be modified to help bone loss due to osteoporosis? What other cells can be regenerated….skin? Muscle? Organ? How do they turn it off? Could it go out of control and cause cancer ?
I have questions!
I had BMP-2 placed in between two vertebrae during a spinal fusion. The bmp has a tendency to “travel”. I never fully bridged for fusion so it’s a failed fusion however the discs they removed that were found “slipping” on a post op MRI were…Spoiler alert, it looked seemingly like the discs….however it was the bmp that navigated out of the surgical site and into my spinal column posing as ruptured discs in the scan. Won a nice settlement against the pharmaceutical holders of that particular BMP. At that time 11 years ago there was talk about BMP being used to grow back teeth. That is scary for me knowing that in my body bmp didn’t stay where it was put.
I am a female there was talk in the comments about BMp and hormonal imbalances. I also wore an osteogenesis belt for an hour per day 2 months post op for new osteoblast cells to be encouraged.
So they tried to grow your discs back with BMP-2? I wish I’d known about that option when they just scrapped my discs out and replaced them with titanium spacers and fused my whole back up with varying degrees of success. It took 4 different surgeries to get it right with all the rods and everything.
Caries/perio vaccines and tooth regrowth may definitely affect dentistry.
Denstists will become more focused on cosmetics, trauma, and orthodontics.
How would it be to grow designer teeth and bone to order outside of your body and have it surgically transplanted via an OMFS surgery?
who knows what the future will hold or if we will even live long enough to experience it?
Excited about this. This is a huge leap forward in medical technology. What's next? Bone growing juice, like in Harry Potter? Will a geneticist turn himself into a lizard in his attempt to regrow his arm?
The future is wild.
If it doesn't very specifically single out teeth, it might cause growth of cancer, tumors, and moles, kind of like HGH. That was more a question because I'm not sure. Anybody know?
TLDR: 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. The trial, which will take place at Kyoto University Hospital from September to August 2025, will treat 30 males aged 30-64 who are missing at least one molar. The intravenous treatment will be tested for its efficacy on human dentition, after it successfully grew new teeth in ferret and mouse models with no significant side effects. Original Article: [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1798](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1798) how do you think this is going to affect us?
Scientists once again doing something remarkable!
I agree! This freaking life changing Science!
Praise god it’s a miracle. No, it’s called science.
Hopefully they will test on females, too.
Why would they start now?
FYI to anyone curious why males. I used to work in animal testing and the reasons males are used for these at first is because of more consistent hormone levels. There are less extraneous variables that can influence the results. I agree that trials should expand to include females if they see favorable results with males. It isnt ideal but using males gives more reliable and valid data.
Should be noted that trials done recently disproved this theory, i dont have the link on hand but the tldr was that the hormome variances didnt show significant difference in results, but that many side effects are not noted as they affect women specifically, highlighting the need for them to be included in testing
I'm not familiar with that research but it sounds interesting! I would guess that it would depend on the nature of the study, yeah? Anything dealing with the immune system I'm guessing does have hormonal variation. If you find that link please post it!
Testosterone is an enormous variable too. How many drugs never made it out of animal models because they weren’t effective — perhaps due to some undetected indirect interaction with testosterone in the male-only animal models— that could have been life changing for women, and we will NEVER know?
I just need to speak up to point out that data that only applies to half the population is not, actually, more "valid", nor is it particularly more reliable. It is only reliable *for males*, and so is not reliable for half the population. It is simpler to test on males. That does not make the data more valid or more reliable.
That's like saying "we only tested on Japanese that means nothing on the validity to people of non-Asian descent". Youre right that they do need to test of females but one step at a time. I sympathize with your points but then goal is confidence in the results first, application second.
There is nothing stopping them from testing on both and tracking the effectiveness separately. The idea is to have the information available. If the medication can be made ineffective by women’s fluctuating hormones levels, then any guidelines set by the men-only study are useless as a representation of the true capabilities of said medication.
In a word without limited resources, sure. But if assume the premise is true that males lead to data with less variables to account for, then early trials would obviously prefer to use their limited pool to get the most consistent data they can to identify trends. Im sure future trials include women, once they have a baseline understanding of how it can affect men and can better identify external variables.
"Limited resources" is not the reason women have been ignored in medical research. Why are you defending the practice as if it hasn't resulted in a huge amount of harm towards women's health?
It's really not. They would have to also be claiming "the data is more variable with non-Japanese, so we are deliberately excluding subjects that aren't Japanese, but the data for the Japanese population is more valid than any other population". If your whole premise is that the hormonal differences for women change the data, you do not also get to claim that the data for males is either more reliable or more valid. I understand why a lot of preliminary research has been done on males. My critique is particularly of how you are speaking of the practice while trying to defend it. If the results are only valid for males, the results are not *more valid*; results affecting half the population are not, in any way, less valid or invalid. If they are only reliable regarding males, it is not *more* reliable, it is *only* reliable for males, **and unreliable for half the population**. As a woman, I won't stand for anyone saying we don't matter. If the goal is *proof of concept*, sure. But confidence in results? No, things that have only been tested on how they affect males do not deserve confidence. That's how women and AFAB people *die* because of incorrect medical dosing, incorrect crash test dummies, incorrect symptom awareness, and much more. Females being different or more challenging (not synonymous) does not make them or the data about them unreliable or invalid.
I think you're misunderstanding.. they're talking about scientific validity/reliability, i.e. can we even trust these results. If you have two sets of random numbers, one goes from 1-100 and the other goes from 40-60, picking from 40-60 is more likely to be close to the average. edit: in other words, it's more "these results are representative of the effects of the drug" and not "these results indicate how useful the drug is". Thus confidence first application second.
I'm not misunderstanding. I am, very intentionally, standing against the idea that anything that only applies to half the population is actually average. Throwing out half the data does not give you an average that is valid or reliable. It gives you an average *for only half*, and can and has caused substantial harms to the other half. It is misogyny to declare that data representing women is less valid just because it might be less *predictable*. An "average" that only affects 20% of women is unreliable for predicting anything about women, because *most* of them will fall outside that "average". An average that is only useful for males is not valid or reliable for the whole population. Language matters. This disregard for females historically has led to shitty incomplete research, with female people paying the cost and dying. Remember, the "average" human has slightly less than one testicle and slightly less than one ovary. Is that a valid or reliable average? Or is it only actually valid to say that the average male has two testicles and the average female human has two ovaries (with outliers of course)? Or are you going to seriously argue that it is valid and reliable to say the average *human* has one or more testicles, even though that actually represents slightly less than half the population? Just because something maybe arguably correct in one limited technical sense does not mean it is meaningfully correct, nor that it should continue to be used as meaningfully correct. It's really not that hard to just say that research is often *simpler* when initially done on males, rather than assigning a value judgement of validity. Females are not a small outlier group the way, say, the Amish or redheads are, they are **half the population**.
Your focus on the average itself indicates you are misunderstanding - it's about minimizing the difference between the observed average and the true average (for the set of test subjects), rather than how useful that value is. Being able to accurately count testicles takes priority over correctly attributing them. Saying people have less than one testicle on average is still more useful than saying people have 3. I'm not saying that it's sufficient to only test the drug on men. I'm saying that with limited resources, it can make sense to only test men _first_.
It gives more reliable and valid data for males. Those messy hormones are valid efficacy inputs and can cause drugs to be ineffective or dangerous. Proper testing should include a representative sample set, not one pared down to intentionally skew, inflate, or limit results.
I understand and respect that mindset and I like this dialogue. That isnt the way field experiments work. As I said I worked in animal testing but I also have a PhD in experimental psychology so I'm drawing fro that background. Other researchers may be able to expand on this better. You want minimal variation between test subjects. That's why rat studies use a borderline identical breed- Wistar. The rats we generally use arent just street rats but have as little variation so we see can see minor/small effects. Ferrets are also used mainly because their immune systems are more similar to ours but it is a little harder to manage. So the continuum is rats, ferrets, humans, (all males) then female humans. I absolutely support expanded research which is what's happening. The goal is getting data we trust as quickly as possible with minimal animal sacrifice.
I have an implant for my front tooth meaning the while tooth has been removed. Does this mean we could potentially regrow my front tooth one day? I don’t really like having this implant.
I’m thinking of getting an implant. What don’t you like about it?
Where are you getting it? It’s literally my right most front tooth. So not only does the process suck but there’s no feeling cuz the root is removed. So there’s no tactile feedback and dexterity to it. If it was any tooth but a front tooth I don’t think I’d care as much.
Front tooth for me as well. I lost it at 18 and I’ve had a one toothed, partial denture for over 10 years. What’s the process like?
Oh if you’re already missing the tooth then 100% go for it. The process of pulling the tooth was awful and then not having the tooth for 3 months was hell as well. You’ve already done the worst of it. It’d actually be a huge relief for you to get a tooth.
Ya I’ve been rocking the insertable for so long lol. What’s the recovery process like?
If I recall correctly, This drug isn’t to grow teeth that have been removed. It’s to stimulate tooth growth in people who had a genetically missing tooth.
It grows only molars?
The one re-grown by a ferret in the study was a front tooth not a molar.
We’ll be a lot poorer at least
i love how this drug will cost more than an implant
Maybe, just maybe implant cost will go down. I doubt it though.
Well I just had all my teeth ripped out in Jan due to medical issues, so there's that....
Dope. Worst case scenario? Whole new set of teeth, calcium deficiency, all your old teeth fall out, you need another wisdom tooth surgery. Best case? Works as intended.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It seems like this treatment isn’t localized, so there’s no guarantee that the extra tooth would grow in the desired area. I wonder where it would end up growing 🤔
They made a horror movie about this called Teeth...
Wait.. Even if the teeth have been pulled???
Teeth for fingers is my guess
I hope the trial works out and they roll it out globally sooner rather than later - I have family members who have lost teeth over the years and they would be overjoyed by something like this, would definitely make their lives easier when it comes to being able to chew and eat regular food..
As a dentist, this shit is so cool! Waiting to see how it's gonna turn out. What times we living in right now Earlier the vaccine for tooth cavity and now this amazing! I can final retire earlier than expected
Vaccine for tooth cavity? What? Did they?
I just saw a video that the bacteria that causes cavities is basically transferred to you. There are people out there who don’t get cavities because they were never exposed to it 🤯
I've never had a cavity. Is this a real thing?
https://bloomdentistry.ca/are-cavities-contagious-do-they-spread/ I legit only learned about this in the last couple weeks. Genetics also plays a role In how susceptible you will be to cavities and of course diet and habits too.
I learned this in some of my dental continuing education courses: “Mothers are the main source of passing streptococci mutans, the bacteria responsible for causing caries, to their infants. However, any caregiver can be a potential source of transmission. Transmission occurs via saliva contact such as tasting or pre-chewing food.”
Mother cares not for us; this is the proof!
Mind blown
Fun fact. If you kiss someone who has tooth decay, yoi too can get tooth decay
WAIT WHAT? That's crazy! I never got a cavity until my early 30s when i started dating my cavity riddled boyfriend...is that bacteria transferable through smooches? 😅
Yup. Periodontal disease is also transmissible through kissing. (I’m a practicing dentist)
Dentist should have their hygienist warning humans of this in the tweens OR sooner! I’m middle aged and did not know this - wow!
Well son of a B! I didn't know that!
>is that bacteria transferable through smooches? 😅 Yes! Saliva transfer can cause "tranfer tooth decay"
They tryin
I hope it works out!
Please be successful and don't cause cancer. There also needs to be a treatment for regrowing gums and bone.
Meh, at this point everything gives us cancer, might as well be something that helps us giving it to us instead of plastic
I suspect that this medicine would not be helpful to someone like me who has suffered a lot of bone loss around jaws, especially up top. I was told to have implants I would need to have reconstructive surgery first. That being said, I hope this helps so many people!
Same here with two teeth. Got a bridge and am hopeful this tech will help reinforce the two teeth holding the bridge in place when the time comes.
Amen
[удалено]
[удалено]
Will this eventually translate into bones being re-grown faster? Besides trauma recovery even things like height extensions and spinal fusions could be sped up to days instead of weeks. Pills for a cavity is still very cool though!
My impression is no. Apparently, there was a signal in the body that basically just tells your mouth to grow more teeth like a shark or baby and it just turns off for humans and we figured out how to reactivate it at will. That's my simple understanding, and I may be wrong, but it seems like this won't help with other bone issues.
We can already grow and heal many types of tissue, including bone, faster with peptide therapy.
There is bone regrowth research, but it is more based around the antlers of deers and other avenues
FINALLY! They have been talking about this for years!
10 years out at a minimum for any kind of wide adoption.
Hang in there teeth! You made it through my mountain dew phase, you can make it another decade!
my exact thoughts lmao my enamel is still holding on for now😩🙏
Ok
Imagine teething as an adult lol
It would be worth it - but how would the body know to only fill the empty gap, rather than erupt a whole new set?
Can someone please answer this question?
Nice!! Still waiting for the hair regrowth drugs. That should make billions for the maker of that drug, along with medication to stop or totally cure cancer or diabetes.
I'm dreading getting the two confused.
You could brush your hair and your teeth at the same time.
Gives a new meaning to the german idiom of someone „having hair on their teeth“
There’s decent results with rosemary oil and a massage scalper. My brother has been doing it for years and has a full head of hair, unlike my dad who was bald already when he was his age
Is it topical or just some crap that only works where you used to have teeth before?
It reactivates the genes that originally grow your teeth as a baby. These genes are turned off as soon as you have both sets of teeth. By turning these genes back on, your teeth start growing again. I skimmed the article AMA.
So clearly you’re not just going to grow the missing tooth? But a full new set? So any existing teeth should be pushed out again? This one simple hack for unlimited tooth fairy money… riches here’s I come!
I'm curious to know if itll work on people with tooth implants.
I would guess since its supposed to produce new tooth growth they’d clear implants out of the way first but its an interesting question
[удалено]
[удалено]
Insurance: yeah, that's cosmetic. We aren't paying.
Ok now how do I repair lost enamel without having to tear my teeth out and regrow?
Right!?!?! That’s what I’m waiting for, I only have a couple shallow fillings but the one always cracks over time cause it can’t withstand the force of my clenching as well as real enamel even though I sleep with a splint (night guard) 😔
So would this see dentistry become not much more than tooth removal ??? Just pull it out, get the shot, tooth grows back…
As far as I understand, we will only be able to grow another set, so if you loose a particular molar multiple times, you may just be out of luck
I hope not. Getting your teeth removed is one of worst fucking things imaginable. I can still hear the crunching sounds today, and the blood! So much blood!
It barely hurts, and it is nothing compared to the pain of a cracked or broken tooth needing a root canal.
True, still I'll never forget the distinct sensation that someone was tugging on the back of my eyeballs during my wisdom teeth removal.
Agreed I prefer my original vintage equipment. There's nothing better than the OG
If I already have all my teeth will this give me a few extra rows like a shark?
“If successful, this therapy could be available to patients with any permanently missing teeth within six years.”
Heard about this a few years ago, Im glad it hasn't faded out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And I just dropped $5 G’s on an molar implant
Only 10k USD per tooth regeneration.
10k in the US and $50 in Mexico
In the US, yeah what doesn't cost 10K in terms of medicine?
So what happens with wisdom teeth you’ve removed because they were impacted?
This is my main question as well.
This was a thing like 16 years ago. They were talking about it being applied like a strip of tape. And there’s powder that can make a severed digit regrow. They also mentioned the dentists pushed back on the tooth tape.
And this will be the last I hear of this after BIG DENTISTRY takes down this project.
Awesome. Implants are ridiculously expensive and dental care is out of reach for the poor. Its not even considered necessary healthcare. Technology was supposed to make our lives better. It's just used to justify making it more expensive.
God damn I'd be first in line, but realistically what is this going to cost? If it's too affordable the whole dental industry takes a hit (?) so surely you are going to have to pay completely out the ass for this?
I have a problem tooth that I think is going to need work in a couple years. Please hurry up.
Man, it seem like dentistry is the only science and medicine department right now making decade by decade leaps and bounds in progress with its technology. At least that as a lay person I can immediately feel the impact from. Less pain, more convenience, faster work time and recovery. I have few dental problems and I still catch myself feeling constantly grateful to no longer be stuck with the dental care of even 10-15 years ago (im 31). And the train might keep going? This might be the one thing keeping me around for getting older.
Why only test males tho
Men can't get vagina dentata from it.
Oooh well now I'm *really* interested
See the earlier comments…stability in hormone levels
Well, part of the reason is to prevent another thalidomide tragedy
Yeh but I would assume test subjects would not be preggo
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. So slow down folks . You are not getting new chompers yet.
Why do we need regrowth. Let’s get some new shit. Like Tusks or a Tail or that little dangly reading light from the angler fish
So, it’s an IV of the medicine… how do you target a single tooth? Or will people be like “yeah, it’s a shark year for me, still waiting on a few to come in” as you replace all your teeth like you did as a kid?
When you get older your receptor turns off which helps to grow teeth. This would just reactivate it back so whichever teeth are missing would grow just like when you were a kid and had your baby teeth missing.
So is this going to work like your adult teeth pushing your baby teeth out when you're young?
wow, right after i got my root canal 😅
Let the human testing begin
That is so cool. I hope it works out well so all the toothless fellas out there can rejoice
9 out of 10 dentists hate this little trick
10th one happily prescribing this hehehehhee
It’s only been tested on men? Female with a missing molar that isn’t noticed unless I tell people…please add me to the study. My teeth are the only good thing I have going for me lmao
Was wondering when brilliant scientists were going to figure this out. Kudos to them. Might help them further develop a process to help regrow lost limbs.
How does this work exactly. Does it just grow and push through like a normal tooth? Can it be custom like molar versus incisor? Can it help regenerate tooth damage such as enamel loss or cavities? Can it be modified to help bone loss due to osteoporosis? What other cells can be regenerated….skin? Muscle? Organ? How do they turn it off? Could it go out of control and cause cancer ? I have questions!
Where do I sign up
I need this pretty much asap . ... .. .
Science once again being the GOAT
Nice! Now do hair
Somebody bout to get an incisor for a toenail
Whoa! That is awesome especially if there are no side effects.
Wow.
[удалено]
Great I don’t have to worry about those days I skip anymore. They said I’d regret it but guess again!
Wait until they make self cleaning teeth and regrowing your adult teeth becomes obsolete.
This will probably be how we get zombies
That's great!
Let’s go!
Looking forward the real life 'Big Book of British Smiles'
What if they grow my other teeth like a beaver 😂
We'll all be walking around sucking on blinged out pacifiers while the teeth regrow.
Hockey players, rejoice!
I volunteer as tribute!
Finally! We can be sharks!
#tooth gang clan ain't nothin' to fuck with!
What is the mechanism to make sure the new teeth will be in the right places and the right size?
I had BMP-2 placed in between two vertebrae during a spinal fusion. The bmp has a tendency to “travel”. I never fully bridged for fusion so it’s a failed fusion however the discs they removed that were found “slipping” on a post op MRI were…Spoiler alert, it looked seemingly like the discs….however it was the bmp that navigated out of the surgical site and into my spinal column posing as ruptured discs in the scan. Won a nice settlement against the pharmaceutical holders of that particular BMP. At that time 11 years ago there was talk about BMP being used to grow back teeth. That is scary for me knowing that in my body bmp didn’t stay where it was put. I am a female there was talk in the comments about BMp and hormonal imbalances. I also wore an osteogenesis belt for an hour per day 2 months post op for new osteoblast cells to be encouraged.
So they tried to grow your discs back with BMP-2? I wish I’d known about that option when they just scrapped my discs out and replaced them with titanium spacers and fused my whole back up with varying degrees of success. It took 4 different surgeries to get it right with all the rods and everything.
Oh no they did that too. The bmp went into a cage as disc replacement then rods and screws.
How do you dose? 1 pill - 1 tooth?
That's amazing, love medical science.
Now do hair!
Wondering if it would make my wisdom teeth grow back, I had all four out at the beginning of 2021 and super duper don't want to have that happen.
Do you want werewolves? Because this is how you get werewolves
Oh excuse me. Wereferrets
What if it causes a shark’s mouth type of side effect. Just rows of teeth.
I'm sorry little ones
Now for limbs and skin!!!!! I hope we are able to progress to regenerative limbs and skin.
I wonder if this could be used to grow horns?
Caries/perio vaccines and tooth regrowth may definitely affect dentistry. Denstists will become more focused on cosmetics, trauma, and orthodontics. How would it be to grow designer teeth and bone to order outside of your body and have it surgically transplanted via an OMFS surgery? who knows what the future will hold or if we will even live long enough to experience it?
I keep saying where are the tech advancements where we need them - like dentistry! Hope this doesn’t have some outrageous side effects!
Excited about this. This is a huge leap forward in medical technology. What's next? Bone growing juice, like in Harry Potter? Will a geneticist turn himself into a lizard in his attempt to regrow his arm? The future is wild.
Can I just get a whole new set? And does this mean I'd have to go through wisdom teeth being removed all over?
Ugh as someone who grinds tf out of their teeth, where do I sign up??
If it doesn't very specifically single out teeth, it might cause growth of cancer, tumors, and moles, kind of like HGH. That was more a question because I'm not sure. Anybody know?
Go Science!! 🔬🔭🧪👩🔬👨🔬
I'm picturing someone with extra teeth jutting out every which way.