How-to — December 27, 2013, 8:00 am

Make Your Own Teeth

On aging without dental insurance

Harper's Magazine, February 1864

Harper’s Magazine, February 1864

My father is a retired engineer who worked for a defense-industry giant for fifty years — from 1936, when they were already selling sleek bombers to Chile and Bolivia, until 1986, when they were building the ICBM that Reagan named the Peacekeeper. It was from him that I first absorbed the fact that “defense” is a business, with products to be created and sold just like any other. When I was a Sputnik-driven kid in the 1950s, we talked about rockets all the time and even built a few working models, but in our mutual old age we rarely touch the subject anymore. Medical issues concern us now. Specifically, his teeth are loose and his pension plan does not include dental.

I can sympathize, because though I teach at a university whose name is synonymous around the world with medical science and public health, I don’t have dental insurance, either. When the dentist recommends a five-figure fix for periodontitis, all I can afford to do is smile back at him with the stubs that are still rooted in my head. So my father and I now compare notes on something worth serious attention: how to make your own teeth.

Happily, at ninety-five he is in remarkable health and has lost only one tooth, toward the back, which a professional would identify as the mandibular left first bicuspid. I’m also pretty fit at sixty-five, with no gaps yet but a molar or two that are shaky to the touch and will probably go within a few years. We are therefore interested in single false teeth, not dentures à la George Washington — at least not yet. Like many people, we were misinformed about Washington’s famous choppers having been crafted from wood. He actually owned a set made of iron, and other sets, devised near the end of his life, made from hippopotamus ivory and extracted human teeth. Washington’s dentist, a New Yorker named John Greenwood, would pay skid-row denizens a pound and sixpence each for their teeth, which he then pulled out and incorporated into metal plates hammered to conform to the surfaces of his patients’ mouths. In a year or so the teeth rotted  and turned brown, but Washington apparently preferred the natural look to the gold, mother-of-pearl, or agate teeth worn by other gentlemen of the day.

Harper's Magazine, February 1856

Harper’s Magazine, February 1856

The point is that false teeth can be made simply and well with enough practice, as the Etruscan artists who made splendid teeth out of ivory and gold bridgework knew 2,700 years ago. I live on a farm and have assembled a good machine shop over the years, so we possessed all the tools we needed to fabricate an item of this kind. Our first dry run involved cows’ teeth, which Washington also tried early on, that were supplied to us by a dairy farmer down the road (he lacked dental insurance, too, and comprehended our ambition immediately). We bought some 0.5-millimeter copper leaf, filed down the bovine teeth to human size, and found that we could wire them to the plates quite sturdily. It was obvious, however, that though the mounted teeth might pass cosmetic muster, they could not withstand the lateral or compressive forces of actual chewing. Eighteenth-century denture-wearers learned this quickly, too, and either took out their accessories when they dined or risked having them shoot out of their mouths, propelled by the steel springs that hitched upper to lower plates.

Ivory being contraband nowadays, and teeth from human cadavers — another choice in Washington’s era — being out of the question even with my university-hospital connections, we decided to try hard-baked porcelain. These so-called “mineral paste” teeth had been perfected by French and Italian dentists in the early nineteenth century — too late for the first president, who died at Mount Vernon in 1799, possibly of diphtheria, or maybe of a bad throat infection exacerbated by his rancid dentures. In 1822, Washington’s portraitist, Charles Peale, helped make ends meet in Philadelphia by baking and selling mineral teeth, which became a sizable industry there by midcentury. Charles Goodyear provided the real breakthrough in 1839 with vulcanized rubber, which provided a strong base for false teeth and could be closely molded to the mouth.

My father and I lost a lot of time trying to duplicate these old methods. We bought a small potter’s oven and a porcelain mix at a craft shop. We learned that heating a slab of rubber sliced from an old tire is noxious business. About the third time around, we gazed at each other and remembered what century we were in. I went upstairs to my office over the shop and hit the internet, quickly finding fast and cheap products for making theatrical false teeth, à la Nosferatu, that could be modified for real use.

First, you make an impression of your bite with a soft casting material called alginate. Then you fill the cast with Moldano, a dental plaster that will harden like porcelain. Using a scalpel and a plaster rasp you fix any little defects, and now you have a perfect model of your existing teeth. The next step is to sculpt in wax or clay the tooth (or teeth) that will fill whatever’s missing. You then make a mold of it with the alginate and flood the mold with dental acrylic, which comes in powders of various colors that mix with a solvent. By pressing the Moldano cast into the mold before the goop completely sets, you get a solid replacement tooth bordered by a thin set of “glove” teeth that fit over your abutting ones. Polishing the surface with a sanding tool and ordinary toothpaste finishes the job. All that’s left is to glue them on with denture cream. They’re so economical, at just a few dollars a rig, that you could make thousands of spare sets for the price of a single set of professional dentures.

So far we haven’t noticed a downside to our scheme. As long as we do it just for ourselves, we’re not breaking state laws against practicing without a license. My father is no longer embarrassed to smile a big smile, and I’m no more or less worried about periodontitis than about a million other medical bad dreams. Do I recommend this for everybody? Sure. I mean, of course not, but there’s a satisfying lesson in it somewhere about business, technology, and fending for yourself with so many dafties in Congress.

Share
Single Page

More from Wayne Biddle:

Close Reading March 10, 2014, 3:55 pm

The Congressional Research Service Teaches Science to Congress

A study in forced neutrality

From the May 2004 issue

The passion of the Rumsfeld

Congress stages an ordeal by rubber stamp

From the January 2004 issue

The world’s biggest tab

Banqueting upon borrowing in the nation’s capital

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a …
Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk

Acres of crossword puzzles Americans fill in each day:

54

In Burma, a newly discovered noseless monkey was assumed to be critically endangered because—despite its efforts to keep its head tucked between its legs on rainy days—it sneezes whenever rain falls into its nasal cavity and thereby alerts hunters to its presence.

Paul Manafort accepts a plea deal; Brett Kavanaugh accused of sexual assault; Jeff Bezos gets into the kindergarten racketon the clock

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today