Dead Teeth Can Affect Your Health Focal Infection Is Real
Robert Gammal BDS November 2012
See PDF of the full document with over 650 references CLICK HERE
The dental profession maintains that it is essential to keep all of your teeth no matter what the cost. Thus all teeth, even dead ones, should be kept. The way to treat the dead ones, we are told, is to do a Root Canal ‘Therapy’ or ‘Treatment’ – otherwise known in the industry as RCT.
These words are deceptive as they imply a beneficial outcome for the person and tooth. Saddly this is not the case – the treatment does not restore life to the tooth and the outcome is far from therapeutic!
In 2007 the Australian Dental Association published a special supplement to their journal, which ironically, presents all of the reasons why this procedure does not work. Simply stated, NONE OF THE AIMS OF RC PROCEDURE ARE ACHIEVABLE. It is impossible to remove all dead tissue from the tooth. At least 30% of the main canal remains untouched no matter what techniques are used to clean them1. The main canal represents the smallest amount of dead tissue in the tooth – most is found in the dentine tubules and accessory canals. Neither the dentine tubules nor the accessory canals are even approachable. All of the dead tissue which remains in the tooth breaks down and becomes a highly toxic gangrenous mess - these toxins can be lethal. It is also impossible to seal a tooth (no matter which techniques are used). All of the toxins that are in the tooth will leach out to the rest of the body. This includes the materials which are placed in the tooth as part of the RC Procedure - these materials are at best cytotoxic (they kill cells) and at worst are carcinogenic (cause cancer). None of the root filling cements achieve the purpose for which they are designed.
The fundenmental aim of the root canal procedure though, is to sterilize the tooth. It is upon this premise that the procedure supposedly succeeds or fails. In 1920 Dr Weston Price demonstrated that the only way to sterilise a tooth was to boil it for half an hour. This of course presents a few logistic problems for the patient.
To date, the dental profession has NOT been able find a method or material which will sterilise a tooth while it is in the mouth. The bacteria which live inside the tooth are anaerobic (requiring little to no oxygen). There have been literally hundreds of different bacterial types found in one dead tooth. , They produce some of the most potent and deadly toxins known to man. The old belief that these bacteria and their toxins will become ‘entombed’ in the tooth and thus not have access to the rest of the body, is known to be incorrect.1 All of these toxins and the bacteria themselves escape from the tooth and circulate throughout the body. The circulating bacteria may localise on a new tissue and cause an infection in a distant part of the body. The Australian Dental Association agrees that it is impossible to sterilize a tooth;
“predictable eradication of bacteria
from the root canal
still remains an elusive goal.”
To compound this disaster, it is now known that placing antibiotics in the tooth, as part of the root canal procedure, merely causes a dramatic increase in ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE in these organisms. This could seriously increase the difficulty faced by the medical doctors who treat the systemic infection which spreads from the tooth.
All root canal procedures
produce Foci of Infection
- Most endodontists will now admit that they cannot sterilize a tooth. Instead they claim to be able to achieve a state of “Physiological Balance”. I have no idea what this means and I have never had an answer to the following questions;
- How do endodontists define “Physiological Balance”?
- As a clinician, how would you know when you have achieved this state?
- What happens to the anaerobic bacteria that remain in the tooth a year after achieving this supposed “Physiological Balance”?
is a nonsense concept
This supposed “Physiological Balance” is nothing short of an insult to the intelligence of the dentist and the patient. It is an insult to the volumes of research which demonstrate the seriousness of systemic diseases caused by oral bacteria. It is an insult to the thousands of patients whose health (and lives) have been affected by the procedure called Root Canal Therapy.
Of equal insult is the proclamation by certain dentists, that the patients are assessed on a ‘case-by-case’ basis to see if they can ‘handle’ a root canal treatment. The only case-by-case assessment done is if you have the money to pay for the dentist’s time. Some claim that a material called Calcium Oxide or ‘Biocalix’ is the panacea which will sterilize a tooth. Sadly there is no support for this claim. There are no materials or techniques that will sterilise a tooth (at time of writing in 2012).
Until this single issue of sterilisation can be resolved,
all root treated teeth will remain a source of
potentially life-threatening focal infection
In the words of one of the world’s leading endodontists, Dr George Meinig, Root Canal Treatment is;
“…the story of how a "cast of millions"
become entrenched inside the structure of teeth
and end up causing the largest number of diseases
ever traced to a single source”
This was demonstrated over and over by such great scientists and medical doctors as Rosenow, Billings, Mayo, Price and many others at the turn of the 20th century. Much of their work was published by 1920. The dental profession has, since that time, tried to denigrate this mountain of research, by claiming that ‘well controlled reputable studies’ have shown it ALL to be wrong. There is no trace of any of these supposedly reputable studies. Do they exist?
Research from the 1960s to the time of writing in November 2012 completely supports the work of the above great scientists.
There is NO ‘scientific’ or ‘evidence based’ credibility for Root Canal procedure. It should NOT be called either a ‘treatment’ or a ‘therapy’. Not one medical field would condone leavind dead, infected, gangrenous tissue in the body. Why does dentistry recommend it, knowing that it may cause a range of life threatening diseases?1
The pages which follow are a mere sampling of the published, scientific literature demonstrating the reality of Focal Infection and Focal Disease. There is no excuse for dentistry to ignore such important research. The health of the patient must surely come before the collective ignorance of the dental profession. The references which follow demonstrate the need for the medical doctor to look into the mouth before making a diagnosis or treatment and the need for the dental practitioners to take responsibility for doing procedures which harm the health of the patient.
From the American Dental Association – 60 years ago. In 1951 the problem of focal infection was discussed at length in the Journal of the American Dental Association; ‘Mechanism of Focal Infection J Am Dent Assoc Vol 42 June 1951’.
A Focus of infection has been defined as; “a circumscribed area infected with micro-organisms which may or may not give rise to clinical manifestations.”
A Focal Infection has been defined as; “sepsis arising from a focus of infection that initiates a secondary infection in a nearby or distant tissue or organs."
The article states clearly that "The concept of focal infection in relation to systemic disease is firmly established" and that "The origin of many toxic or metastatic diseases may be traced to primary local or focal areas of infection".
This article also states that there are two major mechanisms of focal infection:
“a) an actual metastasis of organisms from a focus
b) the spread of toxins or toxic products from a remote focus to other tissues by the blood stream.”
Once the infection passes the abscess area about the tooth:
“a) they may multiply in the blood setting up an acute or chronic septicaemia.
b) they may be carried live to a suitable nidus where they infect the surrounding tissue.
c) they may produce a slow but progressive atrophy with replacement fibrosis in various organs of the body.”
The authors continue to show a relationship to allergic / immune reactions:
“The bacteria at the focus may undergo autolysis or dissolution. Some of the products of this dissolution, diffusing into the blood or lymph, may sensitise in an allergic sense, various tissues of the body."
"A later diffusion of these products on reaching the sensitised tissue may call forth an allergic reaction."
The American Dental Association published that information in 1951 – why is this knowledge denied by our current dental teachers and specialists?
What purpose does it serve, to maintain the ignorance of the whole dental profession, at the expense of the patient’s health?
with over 650 references