I’m getting the following as a definition for sclerotic dentin:
Which “outlandish” claims have been posted as fact in this thread? Which claims were shown to be erroneous?
Do tell.
The trouble, of course, with asking a dentist is that dentists rarely see patients who don’t see the dentist. I do wonder if there’s a selection bias here, in that those of us who have had cavities reverse don’t go to the dentist - or don’t go back to the same dentist - because our cavities have reversed.
Happened to me, anyhow. More than once. As a kid I had regular dental exams and cleanings, but no cavities until my braces came off. Then there were some definite cavities - as in, I could feel them with my tongue, and the orthodontist recoiled in professionally controlled horror. I put off going to the dentist to get them taken care of for about 2 years, and by the time I got around to it, he could find no sign of them. He, of course, chalked it up to a crazy patient who didn’t know what she was talking about and told me I’d never had cavities there in the first place.
It’s happened again as an adult. Roughly 9 years ago, I had a (necessary) root canal and crown on one tooth that had cracked, and I was told that I had “at least four” cavities that also required intervention, in teeth that did intermittently hurt and were very sensitive to cold and sweets. (To be clear: I totally believe him that there were cavities; I don’t think he was trying to drum up business by misdiagnosing healthy teeth as being decayed. He was a well respected neighborhood institution.)
Money and life intervened, and I never went back to him. About 6 years and two moves later I finally had some money and went in for a cleaning and evaluation with another dentist, expecting to have to set up more appointments for fillings or crowns or other horrible things. And…nothing. Clean bill. The teeth haven’t hurt in years. There’s no visible decay, no holes, no pitting or anything.
So, that’s one dentist and one orthodontist who have no idea that *my *cavities heal themselves, because they never saw me again after they diagnosed them.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear - cavities cannot be reversed. And your cite does not say that they can. It’s like with your earlier cite - once you have a cavity, an actual hole in your tooth, it does not heal no matter how many vitamins you eat.
Regards,
Shodan
Such cases, while rare, are not unusual. A famous example is the cause of peptic ulcers. Since at least 1905 it was assumed that peptic ulcers were caused by excess acid in the stomach. A couple subsequent studies showed that this was not the case, and that ulcers were actually largely due to bacterial infection and treatable with antibiotics. Despite the evidence for and falsifiability of this theory, it was rejected and then ignored by the medical community for the better part of half a century. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the bacterial infection hypothesis was retested and vindicated, but even then it was a long uphill battle to get the results published and taken seriously.
Of course, this isn’t to say the claims about dental cavities in the 1930s are correct; just that the absence of any further studies on them can’t be taken as definitive evidence that they are wrong.
I thought I had cavities after my braces came off, too - and I could feel them. Turns out it was mineral buildup at the bases of the attachment points, and it’s very common. The hygienist scraped it off at my next dental visit.
I had that, too, and some residual adhesive that lingered for years. But there were some areas that the orthodontist definitely identified as “cavities,” his word.
Gah… that was rather oxymoronic of me. I meant to write “not unheard of”, not “not unusual”. :o
Other than the lack of dentists and dieticians diagnosing and treating dental caries through improved diet, you mean? It’s not reasonable to suppose this treatment has existed for 80 years without licensed medical professionals twigging to it.
I suppose the conspiracy theory angle is that dentists are colluding to keep this basic cure from their patients in an effort to make more money. That doesn’t make sense on a number of levels but conspiracy theories themselves don’t make much sense.
The article itself doesn’t suggest actual holes in teeth can be cured. Only that demineralization can potentially be addressed (i.e. reversing dental caries - which in the jargon can include both physical cavities and demineralization), which is a point many posters have already made in this thread. But once that tissue is physically gone, it’s gone.
It’s really a digression at this point anyway. The reasonable answer to the OP - the one the ADA, CDC, NIH, and every major public health body gives - is that you can’t effectively reverse a physical hole in a tooth by means other than dental fillings.
Beyond that, there actually are current research efforts to grow replacement tooth tissue. Unfortunately for peddlers of woo, these don’t involve taking vitamins but therapy involving stem cells.
No, that’s not what I meant. I meant posters in this thread were decrying a cite because of the date it was written and not because of valid reasons.
That’s only partly true. The date was brought up because there hasn’t been a single bit of followup research that supports it in 80 years.
Every other scientific discovery, whether medical or not, always has several followups with people extending work or reconfirming it. In this case? Not one. In 80 years there has been no followup to confirm anybody successfully regrew tooth tissue from a change in diet alone.
If my only evidence is an 80 year old paper that nobody else was able to extend, it has little meaning scientifically. And that’s true of any field. All current knowledge is based on incremental (and sometimes exponential) additions to our knowledge bank. All of them can be backtracked through their citations to earlier work.
If I cite an 80 year old paper questioning a particular aspect of natural selection, I better be able to find followup research that confirms and extends that result. Otherwise, there are 80 years of other research that contradict my claim. And that’s precisely why the date is important. There’s been a ton of dental research to the point that every major health organization says the same things (cited in this thread) - physical cavities can’t be cured except by fillings, fluoridation is a good thing, diet can affect the health of teeth, etc. There has to be more than a single article, especially one that doesn’t claim what Surreal claims, from 80 years ago to gainsay the last 80 years of dental knowledge.
That’s the relevant point.
Not long ago I went to a new dentist who told me that I had four cavities that needed to be drilled. I am an avid flosser, Water-Piker, brusher, user of Xylitol, rinser with mouthwash. I was very surprised as I hadn’t had a cavity in maybe 20 years.
I went to my cousin the dentist for confirmation, who found nothing. The X-rays taken by this other dentist were mysteriously unavailable for his review.
Perhaps this is one kind of “remineralization.” I’m going back to my old dentist.
I had a cavity that disappeared also. But I assumed the dentist in question was unethical or sloppy in reading the X-ray, not that my tooth miraculously regenerated. This was a dentist part of discount group, as the cavity was not bothering me and I generally do not get cavities I was suspicious about his determination and a month later I went to the dentist my sister used instead. No cavity as I expected.
For purposes of the OP, yes, but not to address Surreal’s point.
Yes, it’s fair to mock and question an 80 year old article if there’s been nothing since to confirm or support it and if every other bit of research gainsays it. If the only thing that people have picked up is the “1932” part, they haven’t been reading the rest of the posts which elaborate on the reasons it’s unreliable.
But as I said, it’s a digression from the main point, and it’s akin to conspiracy theory.
Same with me. I never had a cavity as a kid. I switched dentists when I was in college, and every time I went to the new one, he found one (and drilled it on the spot, without novacaine).
The last time I went to him, he told me I had another that needed fixing.
I went to other dentists after that, and never had another cavity. None of them ever noticed the cavity he said he would fix the next time.
The pattern is fishier than a school of trout.
Yep there are dentists out there that are let’s say overly aggresive at diagnosis. Bad for the profession and bad for patients.