[Mr_Outsider]

Try and be brief as possible here whilst including as many details as I feel might be relevant. I'm a bit of a worrier with health issues so any studied advice would be welcome.

This goes back to about 17 years ago, when I had a deep filling in a lower molar. The dentist at the time said that as the filling went so close to the nerve that it might become irritated and require a root canal. She said it might be 3 months, might be a year. In actuality the tooth remained sensitive to pressure and hot and cold for a couple of years but never caused significant discomfort and then settled down. Around 3 years ago the same tooth started to cause mild pain so I visited a dentist who said the nerve was still vital and simply refilled it.

About 3 weeks ago I developed pain in the same tooth again, this time more severe and throbbing than previously. I visited a different dentist who said I needed a root canal, which was booked for nearly a month after this initial appointment. He prescribed me antibiotics which he said it was up to me if I wanted to take or not, which seemed a little weird to me, but since reading a lot on the internet since, it seems that the prescription of antibiotics for tooth infections is indeed sort of optional, though it should be at the discretionary advice of the dentist not the patient surely!

Anyway, I didn't want to take precautionary antibiotics and in any case the pain was still manageable with standard doses of pain killers, and even sometimes without. However I didn't really feel happy about maxing out daily on ibuprofen / paracetamol for a month nor just allowing an active infection to progress that long and the dentist had mentioned an 'open and med' procedure that could be undertaken to alleviate pain etc. I called again and went on the standby appointment list and got one to have this done. The dentist opened the tooth, cleaned out some of the infection, injected the nerve to finally kill it (though he said he could only find two canals and would need to check later for a third), and also some medication to help with the infection.

As far as the pain went, this was as instantly effective as I had hoped. The pain subsided greatly and I was generally happy, although the temporary filling tasted intensely of medicinal clove oil for 3 days solid, which was almost as bad (it also seems to have worn down and left 'jagged edges' of tooth quite rapidly).

The dentist sent me on my way and said I still had the prescription for metronidazole 'should I need it', otherwise, see you in 3 weeks for the root canal. Since then the pain has mostly gone, though the tooth is still tender to touch and pressure, possibly increasingly so as the days go by but still not at a level which I need to take antibiotics.

My main concern now is that I've noticed the formation of a bony lump underneath the tooth at the base of the gum which I'm fairly sure wasn't there before the open and med, and either way the dentist hasn't mentioned to me or pointed to on the x-ray etc. It isn't itself painful, except for very mildly if I apply pressure with my finger. Internet searching seems to suggest this is a granuloma, but would it be normal for this to form so quickly? Does it mean that the infection is spreading dangerously or that my body is effectively isolating it (as one article I read seemed to suggest). And will it likely be solved by the root canal procedure (as also seemed to be suggested).

[Bryanna]

Hi Mr Outsider,

I am in the dental field and can offer you some information here.

Your initial tooth problem may have had 2 issues going on. One was it had a deep cavity which was close to the nerve and after the cavity was excavated and the tooth was filled the symptoms lingered. This indicates that the nerve was irritated and the tooth was on a slow path to a problem sometime down the road. The second issue with this tooth could be that it is fractured. When a tooth has deep decay and a large filling (I am going to assume it was an amalgam/mercury/metal filling) is placed in the tooth, the filling expands and contracts with hot and cold temperatures which results in movement of the filling material causing microscopic openings in the filling. At the same time, the pressure on the outer walls of the tooth from chewing on this large filling often result in a fracture in one or more of those walls which could also be microscopic. This would account for all of the symptoms that you have described and they could wax and wane from time to time until the nerve tissue from all of this ongoing irritation becomes so irritated and inflamed that bacteria that has been getting into these cracks decides to set up house inside the tooth.

Let's fast forward to the bump on your gum below this tooth....
This is most likely a fistula that has formed and is the result of the bacteria spreading from the inside of the tooth to the jawbone. It can be hard or soft and it is usually pus filled. It is not self contained and no your body is not isolating the infection. The formation of the fistula is the body's way of trying to find a way to drain the bacteria because it is building up inside of the tooth. Fistulas are usually sore but they may not produce a whole lot of pain until or unless a large swelling occurs.

A fistula can occur in many places in the body. But when it is related to an infected tooth it indicates that the infection has burrowed a hole through the tooth and formed a tunnel through the bone trying to find a way to release or drain the pressure and infection. This tunnel of infection results in deterioration of the bone and the longer the source of infection is present, which is the tooth, the further the bone deterioration will occur. Keeping the tooth, irrelevant of what is done to it, will not favorably alter the status of the infection.

The root canal procedure irrelevant of how well or how poorly it is done cannot sterilize or make a tooth healthy again because there is no access to the hundreds of tiny canals that will continue to contain infected nerve tissue. It is also important to be informed about the chemicals used to disinfect and kill off nerve tissue. These chemicals are very toxic and can cause systemic health problems as they cannot be rinsed free from the tooth so they will travel with the bacteria as it moves from the tooth into the bone and beyond.

Root canal therapy is most often presented to a patient as a "cure all" when a tooth becomes infected. The terms often associated with this are "save or keep" the tooth. In dentistry those terms when used in the context of a root canal or an apicoectomy (surgical root canal) simply mean "to retain" an unhealthy tooth for an uncertain amount of time.

I get the impression that you are concerned about the systemic risks associated with "retaining" this tooth and have been doing some research on that. Most of what you will find on the internet is either from lay people who mean well but are not truly knowledgeable about the subject and from other sources that promote root canal therapy as a cure all. The information that I offer here is not easily available in free literature to the public. It is found in dental and medical journals or publications purchased by those in the industry. However, you can find some information on some holistic dental or medical sites where practitioners are talking openly about it, as I do here.

I hope this was helpful to you..
Bryanna

Originally Posted by Mr_Outsider

Try and be brief as possible here whilst including as many details as I feel might be relevant. I'm a bit of a worrier with health issues so any studied advice would be welcome.

This goes back to about 17 years ago, when I had a deep filling in a lower molar. The dentist at the time said that as the filling went so close to the nerve that it might become irritated and require a root canal. She said it might be 3 months, might be a year. In actuality the tooth remained sensitive to pressure and hot and cold for a couple of years but never caused significant discomfort and then settled down. Around 3 years ago the same tooth started to cause mild pain so I visited a dentist who said the nerve was still vital and simply refilled it.

About 3 weeks ago I developed pain in the same tooth again, this time more severe and throbbing than previously. I visited a different dentist who said I needed a root canal, which was booked for nearly a month after this initial appointment. He prescribed me antibiotics which he said it was up to me if I wanted to take or not, which seemed a little weird to me, but since reading a lot on the internet since, it seems that the prescription of antibiotics for tooth infections is indeed sort of optional, though it should be at the discretionary advice of the dentist not the patient surely!

Anyway, I didn't want to take precautionary antibiotics and in any case the pain was still manageable with standard doses of pain killers, and even sometimes without. However I didn't really feel happy about maxing out daily on ibuprofen / paracetamol for a month nor just allowing an active infection to progress that long and the dentist had mentioned an 'open and med' procedure that could be undertaken to alleviate pain etc. I called again and went on the standby appointment list and got one to have this done. The dentist opened the tooth, cleaned out some of the infection, injected the nerve to finally kill it (though he said he could only find two canals and would need to check later for a third), and also some medication to help with the infection.

As far as the pain went, this was as instantly effective as I had hoped. The pain subsided greatly and I was generally happy, although the temporary filling tasted intensely of medicinal clove oil for 3 days solid, which was almost as bad (it also seems to have worn down and left 'jagged edges' of tooth quite rapidly).

The dentist sent me on my way and said I still had the prescription for metronidazole 'should I need it', otherwise, see you in 3 weeks for the root canal. Since then the pain has mostly gone, though the tooth is still tender to touch and pressure, possibly increasingly so as the days go by but still not at a level which I need to take antibiotics.

My main concern now is that I've noticed the formation of a bony lump underneath the tooth at the base of the gum which I'm fairly sure wasn't there before the open and med, and either way the dentist hasn't mentioned to me or pointed to on the x-ray etc. It isn't itself painful, except for very mildly if I apply pressure with my finger. Internet searching seems to suggest this is a granuloma, but would it be normal for this to form so quickly? Does it mean that the infection is spreading dangerously or that my body is effectively isolating it (as one article I read seemed to suggest). And will it likely be solved by the root canal procedure (as also seemed to be suggested).

[Mr_Outsider]

Originally Posted by Bryanna

Hi Mr Outsider,

I am in the dental field and can offer you some information here.

Your initial tooth problem may have had 2 issues going on. One was it had a deep cavity which was close to the nerve and after the cavity was excavated and the tooth was filled the symptoms lingered. This indicates that the nerve was irritated and the tooth was on a slow path to a problem sometime down the road. The second issue with this tooth could be that it is fractured. When a tooth has deep decay and a large filling (I am going to assume it was an amalgam/mercury/metal filling) is placed in the tooth, the filling expands and contracts with hot and cold temperatures which results in movement of the filling material causing microscopic openings in the filling. At the same time, the pressure on the outer walls of the tooth from chewing on this large filling often result in a fracture in one or more of those walls which could also be microscopic. This would account for all of the symptoms that you have described and they could wax and wane from time to time until the nerve tissue from all of this ongoing irritation becomes so irritated and inflamed that bacteria that has been getting into these cracks decides to set up house inside the tooth.

Let's fast forward to the bump on your gum below this tooth....
This is most likely a fistula that has formed and is the result of the bacteria spreading from the inside of the tooth to the jawbone. It can be hard or soft and it is usually pus filled. It is not self contained and no your body is not isolating the infection. The formation of the fistula is the body's way of trying to find a way to drain the bacteria because it is building up inside of the tooth. Fistulas are usually sore but they may not produce a whole lot of pain until or unless a large swelling occurs.

A fistula can occur in many places in the body. But when it is related to an infected tooth it indicates that the infection has burrowed a hole through the tooth and formed a tunnel through the bone trying to find a way to release or drain the pressure and infection. This tunnel of infection results in deterioration of the bone and the longer the source of infection is present, which is the tooth, the further the bone deterioration will occur. Keeping the tooth, irrelevant of what is done to it, will not favorably alter the status of the infection.

The root canal procedure irrelevant of how well or how poorly it is done cannot sterilize or make a tooth healthy again because there is no access to the hundreds of tiny canals that will continue to contain infected nerve tissue. It is also important to be informed about the chemicals used to disinfect and kill off nerve tissue. These chemicals are very toxic and can cause systemic health problems as they cannot be rinsed free from the tooth so they will travel with the bacteria as it moves from the tooth into the bone and beyond.

Root canal therapy is most often presented to a patient as a "cure all" when a tooth becomes infected. The terms often associated with this are "save or keep" the tooth. In dentistry those terms when used in the context of a root canal or an apicoectomy (surgical root canal) simply mean "to retain" an unhealthy tooth for an uncertain amount of time.

I get the impression that you are concerned about the systemic risks associated with "retaining" this tooth and have been doing some research on that. Most of what you will find on the internet is either from lay people who mean well but are not truly knowledgeable about the subject and from other sources that promote root canal therapy as a cure all. The information that I offer here is not easily available in free literature to the public. It is found in dental and medical journals or publications purchased by those in the industry. However, you can find some information on some holistic dental or medical sites where practitioners are talking openly about it, as I do here.

I hope this was helpful to you..
Bryanna

Hi Bryanna

Many thanks for your very helpful and informative reply. I have a couple of follow up questions if you'd be so kind as to consider.

I joined the forum because I noticed your various helpful responses, and it certainly seems you speak from a position of considerable experience and knowledge. One consistent seems that you are fundamentally opposed to root canal as a procedure or treatment option. My question would be, is there a situation where you would consider root canal to be the appropriate treatment, and if so, what would that be? Obviously this is a very common and widespread procedure - is it your opinion that it should be abandoned?

I understand what you say about the inability to adequately remove an infection from a tooth, though I've obviously not studied this, it makes a certain degree of logical sense to me. However, is there really such danger from having a root canal done to preserve a tooth, if only for an unspecified amount of time? Is the infection liable in all cases to cause more complicated problems in the future? Ultimately, if it is a case of removal being the only fix, might it not be in some ways preferable to delay that procedure until it is absolutely neccessary and the tooth can no longer be 'preserved'?

I hope you don't take my questions in a bad way. I find your responses interesting and as I say do not doubt the informed platform you are speaking from. But obviously since root canal treatment is so often the preferred and recommended treatment for tooth and root infection, your opinion that removal is always the best option is somewhat at odds there and I wondered if you had any thoughts on that.

In my case I'm already down the line to a root canal procedure, having already paid the deposit etc. Not only that, and this relates to the thread about oral surgeon treatment in the UK, I'm not sure I could effectively 'reccommend' myself to have the tooth removed instead (without seeking treatment privately). And I'm also still unsure as to whether I would want to, or should do!

Thanks again for your time and thoughts.

[Bryanna]

Mr. Outsider,

I welcome your questions as they are very practical and I have been asked them thousands of times over the last 3 decades. So it's no problem at all for me to answer them.

With that said, perhaps it is important to keep in mind the real "logic" behind condoning something based on the reasoning that it must be okay if it's common or done all the time or that so many people are walking around with it, so it must be okay. If you take that same perspective and apply it to say smoking of cigarettes... or to the every day release of toxic chemicals in the air .... or to the chemicals put in processed food and drinking water of which millions of people consume everyday. Logically speaking all of these things are common, but then so is the enormous increase of cancer, diabetes... etc.

I will re post your questions and then reply in bold type. Just makes it a bit easier to follow.

<< My question would be, is there a situation where you would consider root canal to be the appropriate treatment, and if so, what would that be?>>

THE ANATOMY OF TOOTH, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PART OF THE BODY, IS DESIGNED TO BE ALIVE AND HEALTHY. ANYTHING SHY OF THAT COMPROMISES THE HEALTH OF THE TOOTH, THE JAW BONE AND THE OVERALL SYSTEMIC HEALTH. TEETH ARE INTRICATELY CONNECTED TO BLOOD VESSELS WHICH ARE INTRICATELY CONNECTED TO EVERY ORGAN OF THE BODY. SO IF WE ARE SPEAKING IN TERMS OF HEALTH, THEN BASED ON BASIC BIOLOGY, IT IS NOT HEALTHY TO RETAIN A DEAD TOOTH. THIS IS JUST THE BASICS AS THE PATHOLOGY REGARDING DEAD INFECTED TEETH IS ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, QUITE COMPLICATED.

IF SOMEONE IS WITHOUT QUESTION OPTIMALLY HEALTHY AND THEY HAD AN ISOLATED INJURY TO A HEALTHY, NON INFECTED TOOTH THAT CAUSED THE PULP TO INFLAME AND THEY HAD AN IMMEDIATE ROOT CANAL TREATMENT, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THE TOOTH WILL NOT BECOME A SYSTEMIC BURDEN AT LEAST IN THE SHORT TERM. YES, THE TINY CANALS WILL STILL CONTAIN DEAD NERVE TISSUE BUT THE PROGRESSION OF THE BACTERIA THAT RESIDES IN THOSE TINY CANALS MAY MIGRATE VERY SLOWLY DUE TO THE OPTIMAL HEALTH OF THE PERSONS IMMUNE SYSTEM. THIS SCENARIO IS IS RARER THAN RARE AS MOST PEOPLE HAVE A COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEM FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.

<< Obviously this is a very common and widespread procedure - is it your opinion that it should be abandoned?>>

I AM ADAMANTLY AGAINST THE USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE MOUTH. BUT WITHOUT THEM, THE PROCEDURE COULD NOT BE DONE. NO I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE BANNED. I DON'T THINK THE PROCEDURE IS DONE MALICIOUSLY AND I THINK EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY FEEL IS BEST FOR THEM. I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED ABOUT THE TOXICITY OF THE CHEMICALS USED OR INFORMED ABOUT THE SYSTEMIC RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH RETAINING A NON VITALROOT CANALED TOOTH.

<<I understand what you say about the inability to adequately remove an infection from a tooth, though I've obviously not studied this, it makes a certain degree of logical sense to me. However, is there really such danger from having a root canal done to preserve a tooth, if only for an unspecified amount of time?>>

THE BIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH NON VITAL AND INFECTED TEETH IS VERY LOGICAL AS IS THE PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF THE BACTERIA THAT SPREADS FROM THE TOOTH INTO THE BLOOD STREAM. WHEN YOU SAY PRESERVE A TOOTH IT IS THE SAME AS SAYING PRESERVE A DEAD BODY. EVERY LIVING ORGANISM THAT IS MEANT TO BE ALIVE, REQUIRES VITALITY TO BE HEALTHY. WITHOUT VITALITY, NECROSIS AND RIGOR MORTIS SETS IN. THIS IS WHY ROOT CANALED TEETH BECOME SO BRITTLE ... JUST AS THE BONES BECOME STIFF IN A CORPSE.

<<Is the infection liable in all cases to cause more complicated problems in the future? >>

YES IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, OTHER THAN THE ONE I MENTIONED ABOVE, BECAUSE THE INFECTION IS NOT CONTAINED TO JUST THE TOOTH.

<<Ultimately, if it is a case of removal being the only fix, might it not be in some ways preferable to delay that procedure until it is absolutely neccessary and the tooth can no longer be 'preserved'?>>

HERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU. DO YOU THINK IT'S HEALTHY TO PRESERVE A DEAD BODY PART WHILE IT IS STILL IN THE PERSONS BODY? WHAT WOULD MAKE THAT TOOTH NO LONGER ABLE TO BE PRESERVED? INFECTION... FROM WHERE? BACTERIA.... FROM WHERE?

AS THE BACTERIA TRAVELS FROM THE TOOTH INTO THE BONE, IT CARRIES A PATH OF INFECTION THAT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO JUST WHAT IS ABLE TO BE SEEN VISIBLY OR PICKED UP ON AN XRAY. ESPECIALLY IF THE BACTERIA AFTER ENTERING THE BLOOD STREAM HAS SETTLED ELSEWHERE. THIS BY THE WAY IS REFERRED TO AS SYSTEMIC AND WHEN DISCOVERED IT IS OFTEN CALLED OSTEOMYELITIS.

<<I hope you don't take my questions in a bad way. I find your responses interesting and as I say do not doubt the informed platform you are speaking from.>>

NO OFFENSE TAKEN. I AM GLAD THAT YOU ARE INQUIRING ABOUT THIS TOPIC AS IT SHOWS YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT BECOMING INFORMED AND THAT IS A GOOD THING!

<<In my case I'm already down the line to a root canal procedure, having already paid the deposit etc. Not only that, and this relates to the thread about oral surgeon treatment in the UK, I'm not sure I could effectively 'reccommend' myself to have the tooth removed instead (without seeking treatment privately). And I'm also still unsure as to whether I would want to, or should do!>>

EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO BE TRUTHFULLY INFORMED. YOU CAN TAKE THIS INFORMATION AND LOOK FURTHER INTO IT OR PUT IT ASIDE AND TAKE YOUR CHANCES. THE DECISION IS SOLELY UP TO YOU. AS FAR AS GETTING AN ORAL SURGEON TO REMOVE YOUR TOOTH, AGAIN EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN INFORMED DECISION. WITH THAT BEING SAID IT IS MY OPINION THAT NO PROFESSIONAL SHOULD WITHHOLD INFORMATION AND/OR MISINFORM A PATIENT SO THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO DO.

<<Thanks again for your time and thoughts>

YOU ARE VERY WELCOME!

[EnglishDave]

Mr Outsider,

My NHS Oncologist advised me to have surgery for my cancer and I agreed. When I got home and thought about it I realised it was the wrong decision for ME and at our next appt I told him I wanted Chemo and Radiotherapy instead of his preferred method of treatment.

He agreed without batting an eyelid, which is what I would expect from any professional in the NHS. It is your decision to weigh up your options and change your mind as to treatments at any time. Of course, the earlier you decide the less stress you put on our beloved NHS.

Dave.

[Littlepaw]

Sorry but I have to jump in here. Coming from two parents with horrible teeth I had many extremely large amalgam restorations at a young age. As expected many of those failed irreparably over time (15 plus years) leaving me with the choice to have either eleven cumulative root canals or basically no bite surface and dentures at an age when I was still going to nightclubs.

Yeah, I chose the root canals. Perhaps I am just some sort of super-mutant at 47 but I have zero inflammatory markers, excellent jaw density, normal blood counts, no pain from my now old root canals and aside from one tooth that had an extra canal that was hiding between roots and had to be re-done, no problems with any of them.

My reason for being on neuro talk is an ankle nerve injury which I pray no one will argue is based on my dental health. My point is, everyone reacts differently to procedures. They can be Heaven or Hell depending on your body and the skill of the practitioner. I second Dave. It is always good to get information to help you decide but ultimately you have to do what your own wisdom says is best for you.

[Mr_Outsider]

Originally Posted by Bryanna

Mr. Outsider,

I welcome your questions as they are very practical and I have been asked them thousands of times over the last 3 decades. So it's no problem at all for me to answer them.

With that said, perhaps it is important to keep in mind the real "logic" behind condoning something based on the reasoning that it must be okay if it's common or done all the time or that so many people are walking around with it, so it must be okay. If you take that same perspective and apply it to say smoking of cigarettes... or to the every day release of toxic chemicals in the air .... or to the chemicals put in processed food and drinking water of which millions of people consume everyday. Logically speaking all of these things are common, but then so is the enormous increase of cancer, diabetes... etc.

I will re post your questions and then reply in bold type. Just makes it a bit easier to follow.

<< My question would be, is there a situation where you would consider root canal to be the appropriate treatment, and if so, what would that be?>>

THE ANATOMY OF TOOTH, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PART OF THE BODY, IS DESIGNED TO BE ALIVE AND HEALTHY. ANYTHING SHY OF THAT COMPROMISES THE HEALTH OF THE TOOTH, THE JAW BONE AND THE OVERALL SYSTEMIC HEALTH. TEETH ARE INTRICATELY CONNECTED TO BLOOD VESSELS WHICH ARE INTRICATELY CONNECTED TO EVERY ORGAN OF THE BODY. SO IF WE ARE SPEAKING IN TERMS OF HEALTH, THEN BASED ON BASIC BIOLOGY, IT IS NOT HEALTHY TO RETAIN A DEAD TOOTH. THIS IS JUST THE BASICS AS THE PATHOLOGY REGARDING DEAD INFECTED TEETH IS ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, QUITE COMPLICATED.

IF SOMEONE IS WITHOUT QUESTION OPTIMALLY HEALTHY AND THEY HAD AN ISOLATED INJURY TO A HEALTHY, NON INFECTED TOOTH THAT CAUSED THE PULP TO INFLAME AND THEY HAD AN IMMEDIATE ROOT CANAL TREATMENT, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THE TOOTH WILL NOT BECOME A SYSTEMIC BURDEN AT LEAST IN THE SHORT TERM. YES, THE TINY CANALS WILL STILL CONTAIN DEAD NERVE TISSUE BUT THE PROGRESSION OF THE BACTERIA THAT RESIDES IN THOSE TINY CANALS MAY MIGRATE VERY SLOWLY DUE TO THE OPTIMAL HEALTH OF THE PERSONS IMMUNE SYSTEM. THIS SCENARIO IS IS RARER THAN RARE AS MOST PEOPLE HAVE A COMPROMISED IMMUNE SYSTEM FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.

<< Obviously this is a very common and widespread procedure - is it your opinion that it should be abandoned?>>

I AM ADAMANTLY AGAINST THE USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE MOUTH. BUT WITHOUT THEM, THE PROCEDURE COULD NOT BE DONE. NO I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE BANNED. I DON'T THINK THE PROCEDURE IS DONE MALICIOUSLY AND I THINK EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY FEEL IS BEST FOR THEM. I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED ABOUT THE TOXICITY OF THE CHEMICALS USED OR INFORMED ABOUT THE SYSTEMIC RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH RETAINING A NON VITALROOT CANALED TOOTH.

<<I understand what you say about the inability to adequately remove an infection from a tooth, though I've obviously not studied this, it makes a certain degree of logical sense to me. However, is there really such danger from having a root canal done to preserve a tooth, if only for an unspecified amount of time?>>

THE BIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH NON VITAL AND INFECTED TEETH IS VERY LOGICAL AS IS THE PATHOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF THE BACTERIA THAT SPREADS FROM THE TOOTH INTO THE BLOOD STREAM. WHEN YOU SAY PRESERVE A TOOTH IT IS THE SAME AS SAYING PRESERVE A DEAD BODY. EVERY LIVING ORGANISM THAT IS MEANT TO BE ALIVE, REQUIRES VITALITY TO BE HEALTHY. WITHOUT VITALITY, NECROSIS AND RIGOR MORTIS SETS IN. THIS IS WHY ROOT CANALED TEETH BECOME SO BRITTLE ... JUST AS THE BONES BECOME STIFF IN A CORPSE.

<<Is the infection liable in all cases to cause more complicated problems in the future? >>

YES IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, OTHER THAN THE ONE I MENTIONED ABOVE, BECAUSE THE INFECTION IS NOT CONTAINED TO JUST THE TOOTH.

<<Ultimately, if it is a case of removal being the only fix, might it not be in some ways preferable to delay that procedure until it is absolutely neccessary and the tooth can no longer be 'preserved'?>>

HERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU. DO YOU THINK IT'S HEALTHY TO PRESERVE A DEAD BODY PART WHILE IT IS STILL IN THE PERSONS BODY? WHAT WOULD MAKE THAT TOOTH NO LONGER ABLE TO BE PRESERVED? INFECTION... FROM WHERE? BACTERIA.... FROM WHERE?

AS THE BACTERIA TRAVELS FROM THE TOOTH INTO THE BONE, IT CARRIES A PATH OF INFECTION THAT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO JUST WHAT IS ABLE TO BE SEEN VISIBLY OR PICKED UP ON AN XRAY. ESPECIALLY IF THE BACTERIA AFTER ENTERING THE BLOOD STREAM HAS SETTLED ELSEWHERE. THIS BY THE WAY IS REFERRED TO AS SYSTEMIC AND WHEN DISCOVERED IT IS OFTEN CALLED OSTEOMYELITIS.

<<I hope you don't take my questions in a bad way. I find your responses interesting and as I say do not doubt the informed platform you are speaking from.>>

NO OFFENSE TAKEN. I AM GLAD THAT YOU ARE INQUIRING ABOUT THIS TOPIC AS IT SHOWS YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT BECOMING INFORMED AND THAT IS A GOOD THING!

<<In my case I'm already down the line to a root canal procedure, having already paid the deposit etc. Not only that, and this relates to the thread about oral surgeon treatment in the UK, I'm not sure I could effectively 'reccommend' myself to have the tooth removed instead (without seeking treatment privately). And I'm also still unsure as to whether I would want to, or should do!>>

EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO BE TRUTHFULLY INFORMED. YOU CAN TAKE THIS INFORMATION AND LOOK FURTHER INTO IT OR PUT IT ASIDE AND TAKE YOUR CHANCES. THE DECISION IS SOLELY UP TO YOU. AS FAR AS GETTING AN ORAL SURGEON TO REMOVE YOUR TOOTH, AGAIN EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN INFORMED DECISION. WITH THAT BEING SAID IT IS MY OPINION THAT NO PROFESSIONAL SHOULD WITHHOLD INFORMATION AND/OR MISINFORM A PATIENT SO THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO DO.

<<Thanks again for your time and thoughts>

YOU ARE VERY WELCOME!

Hi Bryanna
Thanks again for your reply here. I understand your point that just because something is commonplace it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right thing to very well. However, by the same token, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the wrong thing to do either, and moreover I would take a very careful look at any theory which appears counter to such perceived wisdom.

From what I can see, your ideas are similar to those once formulated by Dr. Weston Price. I don't know too much about him but wikipedia (!) tells me that his theories have more or less been at the margins of dental science since the 1950s. Add to that the evidence, anecdotal but surely measurable to some degree, of the many millions of people worldwide who undergo 'successful' root canal treatment, and I am beginning to question further the notion that they do more harm than good.

As far as extraction goes, this is something which seems to be at the root (no pun intended) of many later complications with infection. Might it be possible that the real issue is imperfectly performed surgery, i.e. failing to properly eradicate the infection in either the tooth or socket (or both) in both extraction and root canal procedures? I follow your logic that a root canal treated tooth will still contain a certain degree of bacteria but I've also read that such amounts should be easily warded off by anyone with an average working immune system, and this seems like a reasonable assertion to me too. After all the body is loaded and covered with harmful bacteria which it normally deals with very well, no?

Again, I hope this doesn't cause any offence. I'm here to ask questions really, and as you say, make my own mind up. You seem to have a very good grip on the arguments against root canal treatment so seem to be a good person to ask!

[Bryanna]

Hi Mr Outsider,

I am familiar with Dr Weston Price and his work regarding root canaled teeth and systemic health. As well as ... Dr. George Meinig (founder and chairman of the original Endodontic Society!) and author of the book entitled Root Canal Cover Up... physician Dr Joseph Issels,... Dr Hal Huggins ...Dr Thomas Rau... Dr Christopher Hussar .... Dr Robert Kulacz and Dr Tom Levy who co wrote The Roots of Disease Connecting Medicine to Dentistry, to name just a few. I am also well educated and extensively experienced in dental anatomy and physiology, chair side assisting in oral surgery, and root canal pathology.

Regarding the extraction of teeth, as with any surgery there can be post op complications. Sterilization, technique and skill of the surgeon, patients overall health, and the disease present in the surgical site/bone all play key roles in post operative healing.

I have provided you with comprehensible and irrefutable information about the anatomy of teeth and the jaw bone. How you choose to utilize it or not, that's up to you.

I wish you well and hope that you let us know how things go!
Bryanna








OTE=Mr_Outsider;1139147]Hi Bryanna
Thanks again for your reply here. I understand your point that just because something is commonplace it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right thing to very well. However, by the same token, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the wrong thing to do either, and moreover I would take a very careful look at any theory which appears counter to such perceived wisdom.

From what I can see, your ideas are similar to those once formulated by Dr. Weston Price. I don't know too much about him but wikipedia (!) tells me that his theories have more or less been at the margins of dental science since the 1950s. Add to that the evidence, anecdotal but surely measurable to some degree, of the many millions of people worldwide who undergo 'successful' root canal treatment, and I am beginning to question further the notion that they do more harm than good.

As far as extraction goes, this is something which seems to be at the root (no pun intended) of many later complications with infection. Might it be possible that the real issue is imperfectly performed surgery, i.e. failing to properly eradicate the infection in either the tooth or socket (or both) in both extraction and root canal procedures? I follow your logic that a root canal treated tooth will still contain a certain degree of bacteria but I've also read that such amounts should be easily warded off by anyone with an average working immune system, and this seems like a reasonable assertion to me too. After all the body is loaded and covered with harmful bacteria which it normally deals with very well, no?

Again, I hope this doesn't cause any offence. I'm here to ask questions really, and as you say, make my own mind up. You seem to have a very good grip on the arguments against root canal treatment so seem to be a good person to ask![/QUOTE]