Did the Romans have good dental hygeine?

Question

Just wondering, because I never really learned from the history books.

Do you have any sources?

Answer 1

Did the Romans have good hygiene...for their time in history, yes. There is evidence that they used salt solutions (similar to today's mouthwash) to rinse their mouths to control the smell. what they were accomplishing was killing the natural fona (bacteria) that existed in their mouths.

Answer 2

Doubtful, they don't even today. The toothbrush, toothpaste, floss and dentists are fairly new. Even in the 1890 Dentists did not go to school to learn their trade. They had to double as barbers to make a living.

Answer 3

#1 Cure For Toothaches : http://DentalBook.uzaev.com/?PmXu

Answer 4

as far as u can see from the skuls it was pretty good. the reason why you didnt learn it from history books its that its not really an important issues, i.e. nobody gives a d°°°°

Answer 5

Not likely.

Answer 6

Here's some information on ancient dentistry and dental hygeine it includes other eras along with the Romans so I thought it would be useful.

Ancient history of trips to the dentist
Archaeologists are beginning to recognise evidence for past dental treatment, says Chrissie Freeth

Death and taxes are not the only guaranteed curse of everyday lives. Every culture, regardless of date, area or sophistication has been plagued, to some degree, by toothache.

Because teeth are the hardest substance in the body and often survive after death, the extent of dental disease in the past is now quite well known - in Europe it starts half a million years ago with Boxgrove Man and has had a seamless history since. Less well known, but equally interesting, is the evidence for dental care. This also has a long history which can, in part, be recovered by archaeology.

The first level of dental care is oral hygiene. Toothbrushes, however, are a relatively modern phenomenon. In the past a finger, piece of cloth, or some more abrasive object would have been used, and these may leave distinctive marks on enamel. Teeth belonging to Isabella of Aragon (1470-1524), for example, wife of the Duke of Milan, were studied in Italy and were thought to suggest that she had used pumice or cuttlefish bone to remove black staining on her teeth. The stain may have been caused by mercury used to treat syphilis. Not only did Isabella remove some of this staining, she removed some of her enamel as well. It has been argued that she was the inspiration for the Mona Lisa, and if true, trying to hide the state of her teeth may explain the Mona Lisa's curious smile.

Abrasive toothpastes are also likely to leave scratches on teeth, and some pretty extraordinary recipes are known from documentary records. The Ebers Papyrus of about 1500BC recommended ground pebbles, honey, verdigris and pulverised fruit; the Greek doctor Hippocrates favoured ground mice, the head of a hare and white stone; one Roman recipe suggested ground oysters, eggshells, cattle hooves and horns; and in a medieval concoction we have dried bread, cuttlefish, rock salt and pumice. There is also evidence from a later period for the use of powdered alabaster, brick dust, china, earthenware and soot. It is hardly surprising, given these recipes, that microscopic abrasion can be found on some ancient teeth - one example is on those belonging to Christian III of Denmark (1503-59).

Toothpicks can leave grooves between the teeth, and it has been claimed that they were used by Homo habilis 1.8 million years ago. Both Isabella of Aragon and Christian III have these tell-tale grooves on their teeth, and no doubt many other examples could be cited. Metal toothpicks are known from Bronze Age Mesopotamia, but most early toothpicks were probably made of wood and have not survived. If oral hygiene wasn't up to scratch, the likely result would be tooth decay. Cavities are one of the most commonly reported pathological lesions seen in archaeology, and we know of some attempts to fill them.

A 15th century Danish man had used a rosary bead as a filling and numerous examples of suspected fillings - including wax, gum, and resin - have been reported in remains from the Americas. British examples of gold fillings and silver/mercury amalgams were found in post-medieval remains from Spitalfields and St Bride's in London.

If decayed teeth remained untreated, the pulp could become infected and an abscess develop. A sinus (or hole near the root of the tooth) might then form naturally to allow the pus to drain away, but we sometimes find a perforation of the tooth made by drilling. The earliest known example is from Neolithic Denmark, and a Danish researcher found that, using a wooden bow drill available in the Neolithic, it took 5½ minutes to make such a perforation. Several medieval examples of drilling - dating from the 11th-18th centuries - have been identified in remains from North America (including Alaska, Colorado and Illinois).

Decorative modifications such as drilling holes into teeth, insertion of inlays, and the filing down of the biting surface have been reported in cultures such as the Maya of South America - although not yet in Europe. Such non-therapeutic dentistry may have been purely cosmetic or have marked a rite of passage, tribal affiliation or social status.

If a tooth could not be saved, it had to be removed. If this could not be done by hand, instruments such as the forceps, pelican or key could be used. The forceps is known from the Greek and Roman periods, while the pelican is first mentioned in the 14th century. Several 17th and 18th century examples are known. This instrument had a hook that fitted over the tongue-side surface of the tooth, a bolster on the cheek-side surface, and a handle with which the tooth was levered out. The key is first mentioned in the 18th century and worked in a similar way. From classical to medieval times extraction was regarded as a treatment of last resort.

Archaeological evidence for extraction is usually ambiguous - who is to say whether a missing tooth was extracted by an instrument, or was gently worked free by hand? - but fractured crowns, damaged neighbouring teeth, cut-marks in the gum, or fracture or dislocation of the jaw may indicate an over-vigorous attempt at extraction. Excavations in the cemetery of the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary produced several examples of such oral damage, and this was interpreted as the post-mortem extraction of teeth in order to sell them. Nobody likes to lose their teeth. It not only symbolises old age and loss of vitality, but may also lead to digestive problems and a speech impediment. It is therefore not surprising that attempts were made in the past to compensate for tooth loss by the use of dentures, transplants, implants, bridges and crowns.

The earliest example of a dental prosthetic is Phoenician and dates to the 6th-4th century BC. It is made of gold wire and holds two carved ivory false teeth. However, the most prolific manufacturers of dental prosthetics in the archaeological record are the Etruscans (also 6th-4th century BC), from whom around 20 examples are known. Most consist of bands of gold into which false teeth were riveted, with empty lateral rings which were anchored around sound teeth. The false teeth may have been made from gold or from human or animal teeth. Despite documentary evidence from the medieval period - writers such as Gerard of Cremora (1114-87) and Guy de Chauliac (1300-68) mention false teeth - artefactual evidence is sporadic until the 18th century. In this period, false teeth were usually riveted into a base of ivory. This material was problematic as it tended to discolour and decay causing an offensive smell and unpalatable taste. The false teeth themselves were made from animal teeth or bone, from mother of pearl or silver, and what are now known as Waterloo teeth. These were human teeth extracted from hanged convicts, plundered graveyards, battlefields and mortuaries and from the destitute willing to sell them.

Porcelain dentures made a brief appearance and did not have some of the problems associated with ivory. However, because they were expensive, fragile and noisy they were not popular. The use of porcelain to make individual teeth, however, was more successful. The availability of anaesthetic in the 19th century - and therefore pain-free extraction - led to increased demand for affordable, natural-looking and comfortable dentures, a demand later fulfilled by vulcanite and acrylic resins.

Implants - and transplants, which are the use of teeth from other people - differ from dentures in that the false `tooth' is inserted into the empty socket in the jaw, and held in place with a wire or silk ligature. Only a small number of archaeological cases are known, the earliest of which dates from 6th century BC Anatolia. Implants have been made from stone, iron and shell. Transplants became more popular during the 18th century.

The relative paucity of skeletal evidence for dental care does not, probably, indicate that dentistry was not practised in the past. Teeth are easily accessible and it is reasonable to assume that attempts were regularly made to alleviate toothache.

To some extent, the evidence for dentistry may simply not survive. Dentures may have been removed before burial; organic fillings could have decayed, and graves may have been plundered for gold teeth. More likely, however, is that evidence for dentistry is still not being recognised during skeletal examination. The subject is fairly new in archaeology, and no syntheses of published findings are yet available. More evidence, without doubt, awaits discovery.

Chrissie Freeth is a doctoral student at the University of Bradford

Here's a news report on a Roman archeological find.

Iron Tooth Reveals Ancient Dentistry


NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A false tooth found in a 1,900-year-old skull reveals that sophisticated dental techniques were already in place in Roman times.

According to a report in the current issue of the journal Nature, an iron premolar tooth found in the skull of a man buried in France in the first or second century A.D. fits "perfectly" into its socket in the upper jaw, and "reflects the potential of early medicine," write researchers at the University of Toulouse.

The study authors, led by anthropologist Eric Crubczy, say the skull was unearthed in a Roman necropolis (ancient cemetery) located in the French town of Essonne.

According to the investigators, the find is the only known example of an implanted false tooth from ancient times. The iron prosthesis replaced a premolar lost from the upper right jaw. The study authors say x-ray and electron microscope investigation have revealed that the tooth was probably modeled on the original, and created through "a hot-hammering and folding process."

The anthropologists were impressed that "the alveolar (socket) wall and the (false tooth's) pseudo-root fit perfectly together." They believe this union was aided, in large part, by a natural phenomenon called osseointegration, whereby the prosthetic tooth and bone fuse together over a period of three to six months. The researchers point out that, "although iron is surely not the ideal metal for dental implants, its rugged surface must have provided satisfactory adhesion to the bone."

The man, who was around 30 years old at the time of his death, probably had the tooth implanted about a year before he died. The experts say it was probably hammered into the jaw, under crude anesthesia, in much the same way a nail is pounded into a board.

However rough his methods, they study authors say the Gallic dentist's handiwork provide his modern colleagues with "remarkable clues about medicine and anatomy in this rural community... (while supporting) the validity of the osseointegration principle."

SOURCE: Nature, (1997;391:29)

Go to this link to read an essay on ancient dental practices.

http://cudental.creighton.edu/htm/history2001.pdf#search='ancient%20roman%20dentistry'