werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (11/17/85)
This article represents a bit of a retraction.
As you may recall, I presented evidence that enamel regeneration is
impossible. That remains true, unless you blur the meanings of the words,
in which case it boils down to question of semantics.
Tooth decay actually has two stages, which usually occur reasonable
simultaneously. The first is demineralization, the loss of calcium salts in
the enamel matrix. The second is the decay of the matrix itself.
There is a very slight equilibrium of demineralisation and
remineralisation that occurs naturally. Incidentally, Flouride probably acts
during remineralisation to slow down subsequent demineralisation. However,
demineralisation is in fact a precursor lesion to decay, and somewhat
reversible.
However, if you define 'Decay' as encompassing the 'demineralisation'
phase, then in fact you can make the statement that 'Decay can be reversed.'
You still can't regenerate enamel, but you can reverse decay, so defined.
It's as Humpty-Dumpty once said, "a word has the meaning I give to
it - no more, no less." Perhaps the next time, I should lend out my
Histology book instead of my copy of 'The Annotated Alice.'
(The rest of the mechanism postulated by Stoll is completely wrong -
the flow and microtubules is nonsense.)
However, even though his facts were wrong, his clinical advice was
reasonably good, and I'll paraphrase it here:
1. Eat less sweets.
2. Brush your teeth.
3. See a dentist.
For those who like references, a very good one is:
Cunningham and Williams
"The Decline and Fall of Tooth Decay."
_New_Scientist_, 17 October 1985, p. 44
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
"It's hard to argue with someone who knows what he's talking about."