Can a tooth rise out of its socket if it doesn't have an opposing tooth?

[Udgnim]

Can a tooth rise out of its socket if it doesn't have an opposing tooth to put pressure against?

I have a cracked molar that has become infected and my dentist says that it needs to be extracted and a root canal can no longer be performed.

he also said that if I don't replace the tooth with let's say an implant, the opposing molar can start rising because it no longer has an opposite molar to put pressure against.

is this true? if so, what is it called? I'm surprised that this can happen and I should have asked my dentist what the actual name of this occurrence is.

thanks for the help

edit: found what I was looking for

http://www.toothandteeth.com/tooth-and-teeth-extraction.html

Your dentist may suggest that as the tooth has no opposing tooth to bite against, that removing that opposing tooth could be considered. This is because the tooth has nothing to bite against and is therefore useless. However, without an opposing tooth, the tooth above or below the extraction socket will, over some years, like ten years, move out of it's socket more and more, likely exposing it's roots and becoming sensitive to variations in temperature and so on. A tooth relies on it's opposing biting tooth to keep it firmly in place.

guess I can wait a little while

 

[Gigantopithecus]

It's true that the occluding tooth becomes mostly useless when a tooth is removed, but removing the remaining tooth isn't at all necessary. It will not start working its way out of its socket because there isn't a tooth on the opposing jaw. If it doesn't hurt, and doesn't cause any issues, don't get it extracted.

The cynic in me suspects the guideline your dentist is following is based more on money than medicine - removing another tooth means more money. An honest dentist will tell you not to have surgery unless it's necessary.

Pardon the pedantry but suspect the veracity of a website that doesn't know the difference between 'its' and 'it's.'

 

[JulesMaximus]

The question is, which tooth has the right of way?

 

[moshquerade]

Can a tooth rise out of its socket if it doesn't have an opposing tooth to put pressure against?

I have a cracked molar that has become infected and my dentist says that it needs to be extracted and a root canal can no longer be performed.

he also said that if I don't replace the tooth with let's say an implant, the opposing molar can start rising because it no longer has an opposite molar to put pressure against.

is this true? if so, what is it called? I'm surprised that this can happen and I should have asked my dentist what the actual name of this occurrence is.

thanks for the help

edit: found what I was looking for

http://www.toothandteeth.com/tooth-and-teeth-extraction.html



guess I can wait a little while

The tooth can become super erupted when it has no opposing top tooth.

Your dentist is not feeding you a line of bull. He's telling it to you like it is.
You could also have a bridge to fill in where the tooth is going to be missing.

You could also get a second opinion on the root canal, and consult an Endodontist. That is a dentist who specializes in root canal therapy only.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

The tooth can become super erupted when it has no opposing top tooth.

Your dentist is not feeding you a line of bull. He's telling it to you like it is.
You could also have a bridge to fill in where the tooth is going to be missing.

You could also get a second opinion on the root canal. There are Endodontists you could consult. It's a dentist who specializes in root canal therapy only.

A colleague of mine is working on a research project assessing rates and patterns of super eruption in pre-industrial skeletons, and it is not common. Again, remove it when it starts causing problems, not pre-emptively.

 

[0roo0roo]

well it sounds like it could, by it might not. so why the rush

 

[moshquerade]

A colleague of mine is working on a research project assessing rates and patterns of super eruption in pre-industrial skeletons, and it is not common. Again, remove it when it starts causing problems, not pre-emptively.

sounds like the tooth is abscessed as he noted it was "infected". you don't wait to treat an abscessed tooth. google that and see what could happen if you ignore it.

 

[Anubis]

sounds like the tooth is abscessed as he noted it was "infected". you don't wait to treat an abscessed tooth. google that and see what could happen if you ignore it.

pfft death isnt a big deal

 

[Gigantopithecus]

sounds like the tooth is abscessed as he noted it was "infected". you don't wait to treat an abscessed tooth. google that and see what could happen if you ignore it.

Re-read the OP.

 

[Udgnim]

It's true that the occluding tooth becomes mostly useless when a tooth is removed, but removing the remaining tooth isn't at all necessary. It will not start working its way out of its socket because there isn't a tooth on the opposing jaw. If it doesn't hurt, and doesn't cause any issues, don't get it extracted.

The cynic in me suspects the guideline your dentist is following is based more on money than medicine - removing another tooth means more money. An honest dentist will tell you not to have surgery unless it's necessary.

Pardon the pedantry but suspect the veracity of a website that doesn't know the difference between 'its' and 'it's.'

he's actually losing money or rather making less

I was scheduled to get a wisdom tooth removed first and get a root canal on the cracked molar at a later date. however, the gum line along the cracked molar swelled up in between the dental checkup date and date for wisdom tooth removal and apparently it's an abscess. this prompted him to change his diagnosis from a root canal + crown to an amoxicilin prescription + tooth extraction. if I wanted a tooth implant, I would need to consult with a specialist.

regarding the quality of the site, I just needed some confirmation that a tooth could start rising out of its socket if it didn't have an opposing tooth to push it back. so it was good enough information for me.

 

[moshquerade]

pfft death isnt a big deal

Re-read the OP.

Why?

 

[moshquerade]

A colleague of mine is working on a research project assessing rates and patterns of super eruption in pre-industrial skeletons, and it is not common. Again, remove it when it starts causing problems, not pre-emptively.

A colleague of yours? Are you a dental student?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Why?

Because he said the infected tooth was getting removed. He didn't say the soon to be non-occlusive tooth is infected, making your point about not waiting on an infected tooth moot.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

A colleague of yours? Are you a dental student?

No, I'm a physical anthropologist. My colleague specializes in dental biology.

 

[moshquerade]

Because he said the infected tooth was getting removed. He didn't say the soon to be non-occlusive tooth is infected, making your point about not waiting on an infected tooth moot.

I was commenting on your post where you told him to wait until it causes problems. I suspect now you meant for him to have it extracted and "wait" to do anything about the space instead of waiting to have any treatment until it causes problems (which is how I read you at first)

Gotcha.

 

[moshquerade]

No, I'm a physical anthropologist. My colleague specializes in dental biology.

Well tell your colleague I see super-erupted teeth all the time in actual living homo sapiens, and it is due to there being nothing to oppose them.

Case in point:

Tooth #1 in this panorex is super-erupted

Tooth #16 is also super-erupted.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I was commenting on your post where you told him to wait until it causes problems. I suspect now you meant for him to have it extracted and "wait" to do anything about the space instead of waiting to have any treatment until it causes problems (which is how I read you at first)

Gotcha.

Oh, haha, yeah, getting an infected tooth extracted asap is a given - we have a number of unbelievably awful tooth abscesses turned lethal cranial infections in the lab. But getting something cut out when it's entirely asymptomatic (like the occluding tooth in this case) is rarely wise.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Well tell your colleague I see super-erupted teeth all the time in actual living homo sapiens, and it is due to there being nothing to oppose them.

Case in point:

Tooth #1 in this panorex is super-erupted

Right, but is it asymptomatic? Awesome HIPAA violation on that image, by the way. And my colleague studies recently living Homo sapiens, fwiw, not cavemen.

 

[moshquerade]

Right, but is it asymptomatic?

That is probable, but being it is a wisdom tooth and totally useless/hard to keep clean, it's a candidate for removal.

Back to the OP's case, you also have to look at the fact that with the missing (soon to be extracted) tooth not available for chewing he will now be lacking for the ability to masticate on that side of his mouth. He will likely, because it's more convenient, just chew on the other side.
You will find that when a person only uses one side of his/her mouth for chewing the unused side will build up more plaque/tartar. The act of mastication, in itself, helps to keep our teeth clean.


Bottom line is, if the lower tooth super-erupts it will make it more difficult to have a replacement for the missing upper tooth fabricated. If it were my mouth, I wouldn't wait until it causes problems. Then you might not be able to do anything about it.

Awesome HIPAA violation on that image, by the way.

Yes, HIPAA violation, and I found that panorex online and was able to link it here to boot!

And my colleague studies recently living Homo sapiens, fwiw, not cavemen.

pre-industrial is recent?

 

[sjwaste]

Well, since everyone else is adding their credentials to this pissing match, I'm going to be pedantic and remind everyone that it's HIPAA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

I also want to point out that I'm adding nothing to this thread, but I am enjoying the debate. I've always wondered whether it was bullshit that the opposing tooth would cause problems or not.

 

[alkemyst]

yeah we are fucking rodents and need to find chair legs to gnaw on.

 

[moshquerade]

Well, since everyone else is adding their credentials to this pissing match, I'm going to be pedantic and remind everyone that it's HIPAA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

I also want to point out that I'm adding nothing to this thread, but I am enjoying the debate. I've always wondered whether it was bullshit that the opposing tooth would cause problems or not.

how do you figure this is a pissing match? i'm discussing the situation with Gigantopithecus. no one is being negative or calling names. imagine that.


Thanks for correcting us on HIPAA virsus HIPPA.

 

[moshquerade]

yeah we are fucking rodents and need to find chair legs to gnaw on.

Not really, unlike rodents, our teeth don't keep growing so we don't need to gnaw.

 

[sjwaste]

how do you figure this is a pissing match? i'm discussing the situation with Gigantopithecus. no one is being negative or calling names. imagine that.


Thanks for correcting us on HIPAA virsus HIPPA.

Oh, I was just trying to stir the pot, and maybe correct a meaningless typo that everyone else understood. I'm really not a very good troll Actually, this thread is quite civil. I've always been curious as to whether the opposing tooth would cause problems or not.

So far, I think I understand (from you) that the tooth will supererupt and (from Gigantopithecus) that it will potentially remain asymptomatic. Being a lawyer, which one of you am I supposed to sue now?

FWIW, I've had a missing canine (#7) before and had it for a while, but the bottom tooth doesn't really oppose it exactly since it's smaller, so I guess its not really a good data point - but it did stay put. I had a hockey tooth (flipper?) but that really isn't anything I'd bite down on. Also, implants are pretty sweet.

 

[moshquerade]

Oh, I was just trying to stir the pot, and maybe correct a meaningless typo that everyone else understood. I'm really not a very good troll Actually, this thread is quite civil. I've always been curious as to whether the opposing tooth would cause problems or not.

So far, I think I understand (from you) that the tooth will supererupt and (from Gigantopithecus) that it will potentially remain asymptomatic. Being a lawyer, which one of you am I supposed to sue now?

FWIW, I've had a missing canine (#7) before and had it for a while, but the bottom tooth doesn't really oppose it exactly since it's smaller, so I guess its not really a good data point - but it did stay put. I had a hockey tooth (flipper?) but that really isn't anything I'd bite down on. Also, implants are pretty sweet.

Missing canine would be #6. #7 is actually a lateral incisor.
How is it that you are missing a canine? Hockey accident?