Bones and Teeth on X-Ray

Probably not from a scan detecting a small fragment, unless something morphological about that fragment helped. Teeth and bones are both made essentially of calcium phosphate, but with differing internal structures. But you'd have to have enough there to detect internal structure on an X-ray.

caw

I'd actually say yes - I'm no doctor, but there is a visible difference between a bone fragment and an intact tooth, largely in the layering patterns. Because bones grow in layers, a bone splinter would have some of the layering (if it was from the outside) or some of the porous internal structure. A tooth, in the meantime, would have the distinctive enamel-dentin-root structure.
Also, doctors are really good at identifying things on x-rays.

I have some Xrays in my possession that are nasal xrays of my father. You can tell the difference between the bone and tooth. The bone is more porous than teeth, so the teeth appear much less grainy or fuzzy than the bone. Have you googled images to see if you can actually see for yourself.

Best of luck!

Google Images will be your friend here. Amazing what's uploaded - you can find a picture of just about anything.

I've had an enormous amount of dental work done this year. 3 tooth extractions, plus six cavities and I have to go back Tuesday to get three more drilled. I don't know what happened to my teeth, they just went to pot, but in the process I've had a lot of x-rays done and have seen them, too.

There does seem to be a difference, I think in the way teeth appear in an x-ray and how bones do. Bones I think appear more vividly white, whereas teeth seem more of a ghostly-white. I could be imagining that, though

The dentist did tell me that the way cavities are found in x-rays is by the density of the tooth. The tooth takes on another appearance, which I believe is the color depending on how high or low the density is. Low density can be signs of cavities.

Remember, bones are in fact organs because they produce red and white blood cells and contain tissue such as marrow and nerves and blood vessels. Teeth are only calcified structures. The pulp contains cells called odontoblasts. There are no blood vessels in the tooth, but rather run along the base of the tooth.

http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/dental-x-rays

On an x-ray, a small fragment or sliver of tooth or bone couldn't be identified readily. If the tooth was swallowed whole, then, yes, it could be identified on an x-ray. But a chip of tooth--no. It would have to be extracted from the gastrointestinal track, and the pathology report would reveal whether it was tooth or bone by the structure's cellular make-up.

Xrays of teeth in the skull look different than xrays of teeth floating in stomach juice or otherwise in the abdomen.

Short answer is it depends.

So if you want the tooth identified, have the outline with the roots visible on xray. If not, then obscure it in various ways.

Google will provide basic imaging info and limitations.

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

The question I have is about what can be seen on x-ray. Is it possible to tell the difference between teeth and bone on an x-ray, CAT scan, or MRI?

Click to expand...

Yes, easily

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

But let's say a person was brought into the ER after swallowing several objects, and one object they see is a small, though intacted, white fragment.

Click to expand...

do you mean an intact tooth? Or, are you talking about a tiny fragment of chip of a tooth?

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

From any of the above scans, would the doctor be able to tell if it was a bone or a tooth?

Click to expand...

Yes easily

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

How?

Click to expand...

My radiography text is three volumes and each volume is about 3 inches thick. How is a very big question not amenable to a post.

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

Is there a way to specifically identify enamel and dentin on an x-ray? What do they look like? Do they have a specific color when compared to bone. I can see the doctor being able to identify all the layers.

Click to expand...

Radiographic imaging basically works off the principles of contrast and tangency. Contrast means the interface between two or more things of different densities. Tangency means being able to see the edge of the object in question. Enamel is so much more dense than bone it is easy to tell the diffence and teeth have a very characteristic shape. The most likely misdiagnosis on an X-Ray regarding a swallowed tooth would be to confuse it with a mature teratoma. However any radiologist worth his salt would look up the patient's records and see that they are a trauma patient and simply put in the report, "Given that this is a trauma patient, there is most likely an ingested tooth, recommend clinical correlation by the attending physician."

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

Something else I wonder, would there be a difference between how these fragment on x-rays, CAT scans, an MRIs.

Click to expand...

yes but again too big of a question. Any surgeon, dentist, critical care specialist or radiologist should be able to tell the difference.

Quentin Nokov said:

I don't know what happened to my teeth, they just went to pot,

Click to expand...

See your internist. I would be concerned of the possibility of vascular disease and there are several, or a bone mineral metabolism problem, so they might want to do a bone density scan. Hopefully it's just taht you've been remiss about brushing and flossing. Also hopefully your dentist knows what he's doing and is honest

Quentin Nokov said:

On an x-ray, a small fragment or sliver of tooth or bone couldn't be identified readily.

Click to expand...

It would be easy to tell that it was there but if it was small it would be listed among incidental fingings of things consistent with having been swallowed

Quentin Nokov said:

If the tooth was swallowed whole, then, yes, it could be identified on an x-ray.

Click to expand...

yes

Quentin Nokov said:

But a chip of tooth--no. It would have to be extracted from the gastrointestinal track, and the pathology report would reveal whether it was tooth or bone by the structure's cellular make-up.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't bother. If anything they would simply wait three days and re-X-Ray to be sure that the incidental finding had passed, if they even bothered to do that.