Can cavities Be Reversed?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

This is why I tend to avoid posting much in GQ these days. Too many outlandish claims posted as fact and even defended as such when shown to be erroneous.

You might even say they’re surreal claims.

[Push_You_Down]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You might even say they’re surreal claims.

No… no one wants to say that.

[Surreal]

@Mangetout

Your cite doesn’t even support your claim. It says further decay may (under certain circumstances) be delayed or arrested - not that it can be reversed.

Read on. They go on to state “According to our present knowledge, therefore, the diet was optimal for the suppression and cure of active dental caries.” In Table 3 they quantify the “Average number of teeth per child in which caries showed hardening.”

[Surreal]

@Great_Antibob

It’s rather clear you don’t realize most medical knowledge has been significantly updated and, in some cases, supplanted since then.

Supplanted? Prove it.

Put up or shut up.

[Surreal]

@Qadgop_the_Mercotan

Thanks of those of you still willing to fight “the good fight”.

You’re quite welcome.

[SeaDragonTattoo]

@Surreal

Read on. They go on to state “According to our present knowledge, therefore, the diet was optimal for the suppression and cure of active dental caries.” In Table 3 they quantify the “Average number of teeth per child in which caries showed hardening.”

According to their present knowledge. From 1932.

You seriously think that’s a valid conclusion that applies to dentistry today? Beyond surreal. I did not expect to see such an early join date based on your posts.

[SeaDragonTattoo]

@Surreal

Supplanted? Prove it.

Put up or shut up.

Prove what? Plastics, titanium, and sterilization over wood, glass, and alcohol? Endoscopy, laproscopy, dissolvable sutures over exploratory surgery and string? Digital xray and MRI over poking around someone’s mouth and pulling all their teeth out?

Are you off your meds or something?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You might even say they’re surreal claims.

QFT

[engineer_comp_geek]

Moderator Note

@Surreal

Put up or shut up.

@SeaDragonTattoo

Are you off your meds or something?

This thread is getting a bit too emotional and snippy (especially the second comment quoted). There’s no problem asking for a cite, but let’s try to keep things a bit more civil and focus on the factual aspects of the topic instead of bickering back and forth.

No warning issued, but let’s all keep in mind that this thread is in GQ, so let’s keep it on track and keep your comments appropriate to this forum, please.

[Inner_Stickler]

@SeaDragonTattoo

Prove what? Plastics, titanium, and sterilization over wood, glass, and alcohol? Endoscopy, laproscopy, dissolvable sutures over exploratory surgery and string? Digital xray and MRI over poking around someone’s mouth and pulling all their teeth out?

Are you off your meds or something?

Please don’t mistake my comment as any sort of defense but I believe Surreal is looking for something disproving his “diet can reverse cavities” assertion specifically rather than something saying that dentistry as a whole has moved on since the 30s.

[Shodan]

To clarify, decay in the form of a white spot on a tooth can be reversed. However, once an actual cavity has formed, it does not heal and cannot be reversed.

When a tooth is exposed to acid frequently – for example, if you eat or drink often, especially foods or drinks containing sugar and starches – the repeated cycles of acid attacks cause the enamel to continue to lose minerals. A white spot may appear where minerals have been lost. This is a sign of early decay.

Tooth decay can be stopped or reversed at this point. Enamel can repair itself by using minerals from saliva, and fluoride from toothpaste or other sources.

But if the tooth decay process continues, more minerals are lost. Over time, the enamel is weakened and destroyed, forming a cavity. A cavity is permanent damage that a dentist has to repair with a filling.

Cite.

So rsat3acr is correct in post #3, but Surreal in post #4 is incorrect.

Regards,
Shodan

[Surreal]

@Shodan

To clarify, decay in the form of a white spot on a tooth can be reversed. However, once an actual cavity has formed, it does not heal and cannot be reversed.

Cite.

So rsat3acr is correct in post #3, but Surreal in post #4 is incorrect.

Regards,
Shodan

Good post, but here’s another site that supports the claim that cavities can be reversed:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijd/2010/981072/

Rehardening of deep dentin caries lesions is not commonly encountered in most industrialized countries because dentists normally treat the teeth long before an initial lesion reaches the dentin caries level. It is well known, however, that also untreated, open dentin caries lesions can undergo a rehardening process, provided that the microbiological and chemical environment of the carious tooth changes remarkably. Such changes can be occasioned by a significant improvement of oral hygiene and remarkable changes in dietary habits. The common clinical rule is, of course, that dentin caries should always require operative treatment in order to save the tooth. The everyday reality can, however, be very different in many juvenile populations, especially in developing countries that lack the necessary dental resources. On the other hand, **comment has also been made about remineralization of advanced dentinal lesions in nonindustrialized societies where restorations are not commonly completed by a dentist [9]. Furthermore, hardening, darkening, and continued service for many years by remineralized teeth have been noted. **

[Surreal]

http://www.whale.to/a/mellanby.html

The hardening of carious areas that takes place in the teeth of children fed on diets of high calcifying value indicates the arrest of the active process and may result in “healing” of the infected area. As might be surmised, this phenomenon is accompanied by a laying down of a thick barrier of well-formed secondary denture. .Illustrations of this healing process can be seen in Figs. 21 (b), (c) and (d). Summing up these results it will be clear that the clinical deductions made on the basis of the animal experiments have been justified, and that it is now known how to diminish the spread of caries and even to stop the active carious process in many affected teeth.

[Surreal]

Remineralization of caries lesions extending into dentin - PubMed

Abstract
Remineralization is one aspect of the overall process of tooth decay. However, it is primarily studied in shallow lesions. The aim of this study was to explore whether caries lesions in enamel and extending into the dentin can be remineralized. A single-section model was developed for the longitudinal and non-destructive monitoring of changes in enamel and dentin. Lesions at least 200 microm into dentin were formed in undersaturated acetate buffers. Next, the lesions were divided into groups (three treatment and one control) and remineralized. The treatments were: weekly immersion in 1,000 ppm fluoride, single treatment with methanehydroxybisphosphonate, and a constant level of 1 ppm fluoride. De- and remineralization was assessed by transverse microradiography. Remineralization was observed in enamel, but also in dentin, indicating that, deep into dentin, the pores become supersaturated to apatite formation. Treatments affected remineralization only in the outer part of enamel. Both findings are explained by a relatively fast diffusion of mineral ions, with precipitation being rate-limiting. The results suggest that dentin remineralization, underneath enamel, can be achieved and could possibly be used in clinical treatment strategies.

[x-ray_vision]

What’s with all the “but that’s from 1932” posts? I don’t know if the info Surreal provided was from a peer-reviewed, journal publish study or something less reliable, but studies, knowledge, facts, etc. do not have an expiration date. Solid science was performed in 1932. Of course if further studies conflict and have less variables, are performed on more subjects, etc., then the weight may shift from one overall conclusion to another, but weight won’t be shifted because any of that material being published later and the “that’s from 1932” posts were posted before any other facts were supplied in this thread.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@x-ray_vision

What’s with all the “but that’s from 1932” posts? I don’t know if the info Surreal provided was from a peer-reviewed, journal publish study or something less reliable, but studies, knowledge, facts, etc. do not have an expiration date. Solid science was performed in 1932. Of course if further studies conflict and have less variables, are performed on more subjects, etc., then the weight may shift from one overall conclusion to another, but weight won’t be shifted because any of that material being published later and the “that’s from 1932” posts were posted before any other facts were supplied in this thread.

Of course solid science was produced in the past. What is not possible is that any subject in physiology or medicine could have remained untouched and unexamined since the 1930s. The use of ancient studies that have not been confirmed by more recent findings is a hallmark of all the followers of Weston Price in particular and of other medical quacks in general.

Since we have an actual dentist and an actual doctor who have posted in this thread, I’ll leave any commentary on subject matter to them.

[rsat3acr]

yes sometimes decay can stop progressing into the dentin and you get what is called sclarotic dentin. It does not howerver heal it just stops getting worse. Seen it many times(in absolute numbers) but as a percentage of the decay I see it is a very miniscule amount. The damage to the enamel remains.

Some reminerization occurs in the mouth everyday but on average many more cavities progress then arrest development. We often, when finding an incepient lesion, give it until the next exam to see if it is progressing before restoring. Fluoride in the water and toothpaste has helped with remineralization of early lesions but by no means has it stopped decay.

[x-ray_vision]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Of course solid science was produced in the past. What is not possible is that any subject in physiology or medicine could have remained untouched and unexamined since the 1930s. The use of ancient studies that have not been confirmed by more recent findings is a hallmark of all the followers of Weston Price in particular and of other medical quacks in general.

Your rebuttal does not address my post. Surreal never claimed that the subject has remained untouched and whether they’ve been confirmed by more recent findings is irrelevant as is any findings being “more recent.” My point stands. Everyone that posted about it being from 1932 did so as if there’s any expiration date. There’s not, and no other cites have been posted at that point. “Nuh uh, many facts and studies have been refuted those findings” is acceptable. “Nuh-uh, your cite is from 1932 therefore it is meaningless” is not.

[joyfool]

But if the science from 1932 was sound, wouldn’t it still be being reaffirmed in the interim? I mean, if it’s good, that would be the jumping off point and used for the foundation of whatever follows, right? Not a one-off.

[x-ray_vision]

^ Of course. But whether it was a one off or whether conflicting scientific findings exist hadn’t been determined.