CBS story on stem cells and root canals inflates the benefits and ignores the risks

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not address the potential cost of this procedure and how it might compare to a root canal, but this is important to consider since root canals are very expensive, and presumably a procedure involving stem cell regeneration would be, too. According to one consumer information website, a root canal costs between $585 to $1,400 depending on the location of the dentist’s office and the type of tooth. Those estimates do not include restorative procedures such as crowns, posts and cores, and fillings, which can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars more.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Benefits are not quantified, which is not surprising since it’s essentially cell culture research and hasn’t even been tested in animals. When there are no direct clinical benefits to quantify about a possible new medical intervention, it’s a sign the research may be too preliminary for a wide audience.

And despite the attempts at including provisos into the story, there are more positives presented suggesting benefit than we think are appropriate at this juncture in the research.  Here are the statements that we think are a bit optimistic:

“What we found is a material that can potentially regenerate components of a patients’ tooth,” Celiz told CBS News.

“We’re trying to provide an alternative material, an alternative therapy,” he said, because the current method involves the dentist removing all of the infected pulp tissue, “scraping it out, and it can be very painful.”

“CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook put it in simple terms: “The cells in the area of a root canal, in the pulp, those are normally asleep. It’s like this material goes over and just taps it on the shoulder and says, ‘Wake up, wake up,’ and then it starts to repair itself.”

And finally, “If successful, a treatment like this could someday offer significant benefits for millions of dental patients each year.”

While that last statement may be true, it’s more likely that this research will never pan out clinically, and the story never addresses that likelihood or the long road that this approach faces before it might be widely used.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not mention the potential for risks when using stem cells to grow dental tissue. As with many reports on new research, this story suffers from its optimism.  The new material has been tested in cell cultures and has yet to even make it to an animal model, so predicting harms is difficult but it is easy to come up with some concerns: Will this material be as durable as existing fillers? Has the material been tested for long-term safety? If the material fails, how will that impact a subsequent root canal?  Clearly these questions cannot be answered but we think that any good story should point out the unknowns and not just the potential positives.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story quotes a researcher saying that the idea has been “tested it in cell cultures and we’re moving it along into rodents.” This is extremely preliminary research, to such a degree we’d argue it’s not newsworthy. But at the very least, the story should have dialed back many of its positive statements that overreach on this not-yet-existent treatment and make it sound like the evidence is more conclusive than it is. And the click-baity headline is clearly out of bounds given the state of the evidence.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story lacks viewpoints from independent experts, such as someone from the American Association of Endodontists.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

The story suggests that this research is indeed new.  This is indeed not the case, stem cells have been studied for dental applications for years.  A group in Japan has been developing a stem cell based therapy for dental caries that has progressed in 2013 to animal studies.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Satisfactory

The story used some statements from the news release without attribution, although they were slightly altered.

Example, from the story:

When dental pulp disease and injury happen, a root canal is typically performed to remove the infected tissues, explained Dr. Adam Celiz, Marie Curie Research Fellow at the University of Nottingham. Instead of the current dental materials used on fillings, which are toxic to cells, the new approach harnesses stem cells instead.

And how it appeared in the news release:

“Existing dental fillings are toxic to cells and are therefore incompatible with pulp tissue inside the tooth. In cases of dental pulp disease and injury a root canal is typically performed to remove the infected tissues.”