A Roman “implant” reconsidered

Abstract

Crubézy et al. reply — We disagree with Becker's view that the dental implant described in our earlier Scientific Correspondence¹ is a natural canine stained with iron oxides. The dental implant was located in a position normally taken by the upper second right premolar, a position in which a normal canine would not be found. Furthermore, the only goods associated with this burial were pottery, not iron or any metal objects². Even if there had been iron oxide contamination, it is unlikely that it would have affected only one tooth. Figure 1a in our earlier Scientific Correspondence shows that the piece of metal is corroded on its periphery; the “smooth, intact surface” observed on the X-ray is a common artefact of the technique. Finally, we have already noted that the implant was broken and that metallurgical analysis unambiguously identifies it as metal and not as a biological tissue.

Main

The fabrication of a “detailed replica” of a human tooth is not as dubious as Becker maintains. Chemical analysis indicates that the metal was given its shape through hot-hammering and folding, a basic technique of ancient blacksmiths, including those of Gallo-Roman times. Concerning the successful retention of the implant, it is possible that the iron could have facilitated the osseo-integration³; the absence of aseptic conditions does not systematically imply the rejection of the implant. The success of this procedure in an ancient population is no more amazing than the 70 per cent survival rate among patients who underwent trepanation⁴ or the successful performance of cataract surgery⁵.

Thus our anatomical, morphological, metallurgical and microscopic analyses of this specimen document, without question, the successful implantation of this dental prosthesis.