A Roman “implant” reconsidered

Abstract

A supposed “wrought iron” dental implant¹ was recently reported from a second century CE Gallo-Roman necropolis in Chantambre (Essonne, France), but in my view the data need to be re-evaluated in the light of what is known regarding ancient and modern dentistry²,⁴. The item is described as “severely corroded”, for example, but an X-ray reveals a perfectly formed tooth with a smooth, intact surface free from the pitting expected on a small iron object interred for nearly 2,000 years under less than ideal conditions. The archaeological context and data on finds of iron in this and other tombs are not provided.

Main

The production of a small, detailed replica of a human tooth in iron would test the skills of modern crafters. Less likely is that it would be accepted by a human body under questionably sterile conditions. This tooth appears to be a natural canine stained with oxides from proximity with an iron-rich object. This explains the detailed shape, its appearance in the X-ray, and the analytical results reported¹. The principal types of known ancient dental appliances fall into two categories: decorative Etruscan examples of the seventh to first centuries BC²,⁵,⁶ and functional Near Eastern wire examples, developed in about 400 BCto stabilize loose teeth until they could regain natural anchorage⁷. Both types are known from the ancient literature and from unequivocable archaeological examples. Dental implants are unknown in the ancient medical texts or literature, and no archaeological examples have been verified.

Modern dental techniques developed late in the nineteenth century and are still evolving. The development of sophisticated implant materials that are accepted by the body is a very recent achievement⁸,⁹ related to parallel research done in bone joint replacement. Dental implantology is still emerging from experimental stages¹⁰, and requires sophisticated high-technology alloys and bonds of complex composition. With space-age technology and the most modern antiseptic conditions, a five-year success rate of around 85% has now been achieved. Dental loss is commonly thought of as a normal factor of ageing, with replacements being limited to the well-to-do among the most industrialized countries. The likelihood that the ancient Romans would have been interested in attempting to fashion dental implants to replace lost teeth is remote.

I therefore suggest that the Chanatambre specimen is a natural tooth stained with iron oxides, and not an iron implant. We have good reason to marvel at the massive construction projects of the Romans, and at their delicate carvings on impressively hard gemstones. The ability of ancient “surgeons” throughout the world to cut pieces from human skulls and to have many of their patients survive is equally amazing. But whether they were interested in or capable of creating true dental implants in my view requires more evidence.