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.