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.
I do wish that media coverage would stop calling it a regrowth drug. It might get there eventually, but that’s not what it is, and it causes issues with people misunderstanding medical science.
The medicine itself deactivates the uterine sensitization-associated gene-1 (USAG-1) protein, which suppresses tooth growth. As we reported in 2023, blocking USAG-1’s interaction with other proteins encourages bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling, which triggers new bone to generate.
In the ferret study, the drug resulted in the growth of a new tooth (fourth from left), and it also strengthened bone in the existing set.
It resulted in new teeth emerging in the mouths of mice and ferrets, species that share close to the same USAG-1 properties as humans.
Am I missing something? It seems like it prompts the body to actually grow new teeth, though I’ll admit I am way out of my wheelhouse here.
It’s more about the extremely early stages of things. It will be years before it gets to the point it’s being used on people that have lost teeth. Right now, it’s for people only with congenital lack of teeth.
I’m not saying the drug isn’t going there eventually, it likely will. But it’s not going to be even tested for other uses for something like two more years (iirc, I’m pulling this from memory over the last year or so that the drug has been reported on) from now, and even that assumes the current testing is successful.
It’s an incredibly promising thing that will help a lot of people if it’s safe and effective, not just the current targeted population.
I’m actually hyped for this to work out. My working life was partially with geriatric patients. The quality of life loss that goes along with tooth loss is horrible. Then there’s the loss of bone density in the jaw after losing the teeth.
My peeve is with the reporting putting the cart before the horse. Bad medical reporting causes problems even more than bad science reporting in general. Report what is, especially in headlines, then cover what might be as a secondary note. Right now, regrowing teeth is not proven capability of the drug for humans. The testing for growing teeth where they’ve never been hasn’t even finished yet.
What is it? I guess the distinction is between regrowth and regeneration. I’ll admit regrowth sounded great, because my four front teeth have been shaved down to posts for veneers because of an unfortunate incident with a hockey puck. Sounds like this isn’t for me.
I do wish that media coverage would stop calling it a regrowth drug. It might get there eventually, but that’s not what it is, and it causes issues with people misunderstanding medical science.
Am I missing something? It seems like it prompts the body to actually grow new teeth, though I’ll admit I am way out of my wheelhouse here.
It’s more about the extremely early stages of things. It will be years before it gets to the point it’s being used on people that have lost teeth. Right now, it’s for people only with congenital lack of teeth.
I’m not saying the drug isn’t going there eventually, it likely will. But it’s not going to be even tested for other uses for something like two more years (iirc, I’m pulling this from memory over the last year or so that the drug has been reported on) from now, and even that assumes the current testing is successful.
It’s an incredibly promising thing that will help a lot of people if it’s safe and effective, not just the current targeted population.
I’m actually hyped for this to work out. My working life was partially with geriatric patients. The quality of life loss that goes along with tooth loss is horrible. Then there’s the loss of bone density in the jaw after losing the teeth.
My peeve is with the reporting putting the cart before the horse. Bad medical reporting causes problems even more than bad science reporting in general. Report what is, especially in headlines, then cover what might be as a secondary note. Right now, regrowing teeth is not proven capability of the drug for humans. The testing for growing teeth where they’ve never been hasn’t even finished yet.
The reality of what it is right now isn’t as catchy as what it could be.
So media tends towards the latter. More clicks that way.
What is it? I guess the distinction is between regrowth and regeneration. I’ll admit regrowth sounded great, because my four front teeth have been shaved down to posts for veneers because of an unfortunate incident with a hockey puck. Sounds like this isn’t for me.
It might be some day.
But right now, it’s being tested on people that have never had teeth, or at least not a full set.