Humans cannot naturally regrow whole adult teeth right now, and a widely available clinical therapy to make that happen is likely still 10 to 20 years away for most people. That said, real science is moving on this, one Japanese drug candidate (an anti-USAG-1 antibody called TRG035) entered human clinical trials in 2024, and limited forms of dental regeneration already exist today. So the honest answer is: not yet, but the science is no longer stuck at the "nice idea" stage.
When Will We Be Able to Grow New Teeth Again?
What "growing new teeth" can and can't mean
Before diving into timelines, it's worth being clear about what you're actually asking, because "grow new teeth" means very different things depending on context, and the research community uses the phrase differently than most people do.
- Whole-tooth regeneration (root to crown): Growing a fully functional new tooth from scratch, complete with enamel, dentin, pulp, root, and the periodontal ligament that anchors it in the jawbone. This is what most people picture when they imagine "regrowing" a lost molar. This does NOT happen naturally in adult humans.
- Component-level regeneration: Regrowing just one part of a tooth, like repairing dental pulp, regenerating cementum on the root surface, or stimulating new alveolar bone. These are more targeted research goals and closer to clinical reality in some cases.
- Enamel remineralization: This is the natural (and dentist-assisted) process of re-depositing calcium and phosphate minerals into early-stage enamel damage. It can reverse non-cavitated lesions. This is NOT regrowing a tooth. It is repairing microscopic crystal voids in surface enamel, and it has hard limits.
- Gum and periodontal healing: Gum tissue and the periodontal ligament have genuine regenerative capacity. Periodontal treatments using membranes, bone grafts, and tissue-stimulating proteins can restore some of the supporting structures around existing teeth. Again, this is not creating a new tooth.
Most of the excitement you'll read about online blurs these categories together. Enamel remineralization is real but modest. Periodontal regeneration is clinically available but limited in scope. Whole-tooth regrowth from nothing is the frontier everyone wants, and it's the hardest problem by a wide margin.
Why adult teeth don't naturally regrow
Growing a tooth from scratch requires running a tightly choreographed developmental program, the same kind of program that built your teeth while you were an embryo. That process involves dozens of signaling pathways (including BMP, Wnt, TGF-beta, Shh, and FGF), reciprocal conversations between epithelial and mesenchymal cells, and a specialized temporary structure called Hertwig's epithelial root sheath (HERS) that guides root formation. Once crown development is done, HERS wraps around the base of the developing tooth and instructs the root to grow in the right shape and length. Without it, you don't get a proper root. Without a proper root, you don't get a functional tooth.
The problem for adults is that this entire developmental architecture is dismantled after it does its job. There's no reservoir of tooth-forming cells sitting in your jaw waiting for a signal to start over. Adult humans simply lack a readily reactivated version of the developmental program that builds teeth. It's not that the genes are gone, it's that the cellular machinery and tissue environment needed to run that program no longer exist in your jaw. Recreating it therapeutically is genuinely complex, which is why this problem has resisted easy solutions for decades.
People sometimes wonder whether humans could ever grow a third set of teeth the way some animals cycle through multiple sets throughout their lives. That's a real biological question, and the short answer is that our genetics probably still carry some of the blueprint, but the practical barriers to unlocking it safely in adults are enormous.
Where regeneration actually does happen
In children: normal tooth development

Kids are not "regrowing" teeth in the regenerative sense, but they are doing something that looks similar from the outside: losing a primary tooth and having a permanent one erupt in its place. This is programmed development, not regeneration. It's a second set that was already forming in the jaw, not a new one being built from scratch after loss. Once those permanent teeth are gone, there is no third developmental wave waiting.
Enamel: limited surface repair only
Enamel is the hardest tissue in the human body, but it's made by cells (ameloblasts) that are gone by the time a tooth fully erupts. Your body cannot regenerate enamel from scratch. What it can do is remineralize early lesions: calcium and phosphate ions from saliva (and fluoride from toothpaste or treatments) can fill in microscopic crystal voids in demineralized enamel. This works for very early-stage decay (white-spot lesions) but not for cavities, cracks, or anything involving structural loss. Once enamel is physically gone, it's gone.
Gums and periodontal tissues: real but partial regeneration

Gum tissue heals relatively well after injury or surgery. Periodontal regeneration, restoring the bone, cementum, and ligament that support a tooth, is a real clinical goal and has genuine (though limited) success. Periodontists can use barrier membranes, bone grafts, and proteins like platelet-derived growth factor to encourage regrowth of supporting structures around teeth that still exist. The ADA recognizes these approaches as part of active periodontal treatment. But this is about saving existing teeth, not generating new ones from nothing.
What science is actually working on right now
Tooth regeneration research has three main threads, and they're at very different stages of development.
1. Drug-based approaches: the USAG-1 antibody

This is the most concrete near-term development. USAG-1 (uterine sensitization-associated gene-1) is a protein that suppresses tooth formation. In animal studies, blocking USAG-1 with an antibody allowed additional teeth to develop, including anatomically complete, functional ones. A Japanese company called Toregem BioPharma developed a humanized anti-USAG-1 antibody called TRG035. It was designated as an orphan drug (targeting patients with congenital tooth loss conditions), and Phase I clinical trials began at Kyoto University Hospital in 2024, primarily to evaluate safety and tolerability. This is a real, registered, human clinical trial. It is early-stage and focused initially on patients with congenital tooth agenesis (people born missing teeth), not average adults who've lost teeth to decay or injury.
2. Stem cell and tissue engineering approaches
Multiple research groups have explored using dental pulp stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and scaffold-based tissue engineering to try to grow tooth structures in the lab. Some have produced tooth-like structures in animal models. The challenge is reproducibility, getting the size and shape right, ensuring the root forms correctly, and making sure the engineered tooth integrates with bone and achieves proper occlusion (fit with opposing teeth). None of these approaches have reached human clinical trials for whole-tooth replacement.
3. Component regeneration (pulp, root, PDL)
Regenerative endodontics, using biological approaches to restore pulp tissue in immature permanent teeth, is already a real (though specialized) clinical procedure for certain pediatric cases. Regenerating the periodontal ligament, cementum, or alveolar bone around existing teeth is an active clinical research area. These partial approaches are closer to practice than whole-tooth solutions but don't replace a missing tooth.
Realistic timelines: what to actually expect and when
Here's where it's important to separate genuine progress from hype. The USAG-1 trial is real and meaningful, but Phase I is just safety testing. Even if it goes perfectly, it would need Phase II (efficacy) and Phase III (large-scale) trials before regulatory approval anywhere. That pipeline typically takes 10 or more years from Phase I, and that's assuming no setbacks. The earliest realistic scenario for a drug-based tooth regeneration therapy reaching patients outside of clinical trials is the mid-2030s at the very optimistic end, and more likely late 2030s or 2040s for broad availability.
| Approach | Current Status (as of 2026) | Realistic Timeline to Availability |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-USAG-1 antibody (TRG035) | Phase I human trials (safety), Japan, 2024 | Earliest approval mid-2030s; broad availability likely 2035-2045+ |
| Stem cell / tissue-engineered whole tooth | Animal models only, no human trials for whole tooth | 2040s at earliest, highly uncertain |
| Component regeneration (pulp, PDL, bone) | Some already in limited clinical use (regenerative endo) | Available now in specialized settings |
| Enamel remineralization products | Clinically available (fluoride, casein phosphopeptide, etc.) | Available now |
| Periodontal regeneration | Clinically available with membranes, grafts, growth factors | Available now |
One thing worth noting: even if a tooth-growing drug becomes available, early versions will likely target specific populations first (children with congenital tooth agenesis, where dormant tooth buds may still be present to stimulate) before being studied for adults who've lost teeth through typical causes. Adults who've had teeth extracted for years, with bone resorption already underway, face a harder biological problem than children who never developed certain teeth. The path to a therapy that works for the average adult who lost a molar to decay is longer than headlines often suggest.
What to do right now if you've lost teeth
Waiting for regenerative dentistry to catch up is not a practical strategy for most people dealing with tooth loss today. The good news is that the current standard-of-care options are genuinely excellent.
Dental implants: the gold standard

Dental implants are titanium posts placed into the jawbone that act as artificial roots, topped with a crown. A systematic review with meta-analysis puts 10-year implant survival at 96.4% (95% CI: 95.2% to 97.5%), which is genuinely excellent long-term performance. Implants preserve jawbone, feel close to natural teeth, and don't require altering adjacent teeth. They are expensive and not suitable for everyone (you need adequate bone density and generally need to be done growing), but if you're a candidate, they are by far the closest thing to a natural tooth that exists today. If you're wondering why can't humans grow more teeth, it's also why dental implants are the closest thing to a natural tooth available today.
Bridges and partial dentures
A fixed bridge uses crowns on adjacent teeth to support a false tooth in the gap. It's more affordable than implants and doesn't require surgery, but it does require grinding down healthy neighboring teeth. Removable partial or complete dentures are the most accessible option cost-wise. The ADA notes that removable dentures should typically be replaced when more than about 5 years have passed since fabrication, since the jaw changes over time. Modern implant-retained dentures offer a significant improvement in stability and comfort over traditional removable ones.
How to consider clinical trials responsibly
If you're interested in being part of the science, clinical trials are a legitimate option, but approach them carefully. The FDA requires that any risks involved be reasonable relative to what's known and that you give legally effective informed consent before participating. Some practical steps:
- Search ClinicalTrials.gov (for the US) or the EMA's Clinical Trials Information System (for Europe) using terms like "tooth regeneration" or "tooth agenesis." These registries show verified, registered trials with eligibility criteria, locations, and status.
- Check that the trial is registered with a recognized regulatory body (FDA, EMA, PMDA in Japan). Unregistered "stem cell treatments" offered at private clinics overseas are a red flag.
- Read the eligibility criteria carefully. Most current regeneration trials target very specific populations (children with congenital tooth agenesis, not adults with typical tooth loss).
- Ask what phase the trial is in. Phase I is safety testing only. You are unlikely to receive a functional new tooth from a Phase I trial; you are contributing to safety data.
- Consult your dentist or an oral maxillofacial specialist before enrolling. They can help you evaluate whether a trial makes sense for your specific situation and whether standard care might serve you better in the meantime.
The bottom line
Regrowing whole adult teeth from root to crown is not possible today, and it won't be broadly available for at least another decade, probably longer. The science is real and moving, especially the USAG-1 antibody approach now in human trials, but there's a long regulated pathway between a Phase I safety trial and a dentist's office offering you a tooth-growing injection. In the meantime, dental implants with their 96%-plus 10-year survival rate are an excellent solution if you're a candidate, and other replacement options have improved considerably. If you want to stay connected to the science, bookmark ClinicalTrials.gov and check in annually, but don't put off replacing a missing tooth while waiting for something that may still be years from reality.
FAQ
Does “grow new teeth” mean I can get a tooth replacement without implants or surgery?
Regenerative dentistry today is mostly about improving or restoring what already exists. If you lost a tooth to decay and the root and surrounding tissues are gone, most “regrowth” options you can access will focus on bone, gum support, or filling gaps with implants or bridges, not creating an entirely new tooth from scratch.
If a tooth-regeneration drug works in trials, will it automatically apply to adults who lost teeth years ago?
Trials are usually narrow. A therapy designed for congenital missing teeth may not work the same way in adults with long-standing extractions because the jaw bone and tooth-supporting environment change over time. When you look at a trial listing, check the eligibility criteria for time since extraction, age range, and whether you have congenitally missing teeth versus lost teeth.
Can I “re-grow” enamel if I already have a cavity?
Enamel remineralization can only help very early lesions. If you have a visible cavity, a chipped tooth with structural loss, or ongoing pain from pulp involvement, remineralization is unlikely to restore the missing structure, and you should treat the problem with standard dental care rather than waiting for future regeneration.
Is regenerative endodontics a way to regrow new teeth in adults?
Not typically. Current regenerative endodontics focuses on restoring pulp tissue in specific pediatric or immature permanent tooth situations, such as when the root is still developing. If the root is fully formed and the tooth is mature, the approach and expected outcomes can be different.
Should I delay tooth replacement until the first tooth-growing therapy becomes available?
You generally do not. The most relevant benefit of “tooth-growing” research for many people will come later through drug-like therapies, and those require multi-phase safety and efficacy testing, plus manufacturing and regulatory review. Realistically, your best plan is to treat the current tooth loss with today’s options and consider trials only if you meet criteria.
Can gum and bone regeneration help me avoid losing a tooth, even if it already has gum recession?
Sometimes, but it depends on the stage of the problem. In many cases, periodontal regeneration aims to rebuild the supporting structures around a tooth that can still be kept. If the tooth is hopeless due to severe damage or advanced infection, regenerative approaches may not be feasible, and extraction plus replacement becomes the safer route.
What questions should I ask before enrolling in a dental regeneration clinical trial?
If you want to join a study, the key is to compare the trial’s risk profile to your current standard-of-care options. Ask whether there is a placebo, what the potential side effects are, how long follow-up lasts, and whether you will receive any active treatment if you are randomized to a different arm.
How does the time since my tooth was removed change my options today?
Bone changes can affect eligibility and outcomes for replacement options. If you are years out from extraction, you may need procedures to rebuild adequate bone or modify the treatment plan before implant placement. This is one reason trials for congenital cases may not translate directly to long-term adult extraction scenarios.
Which existing option is most similar to a natural tooth, and what trade-offs should I expect?
If you have missing teeth but also want to avoid altering neighboring teeth, implants are usually the closest match to that goal. Bridges can work when you accept preparing adjacent teeth. Dentures can be an option for cost and accessibility, but they often require replacement as the jaw reshapes over time.
Citations
A common research definition of “tooth regeneration” is broader than whole-tooth regrowth: it can mean regeneration of an entire tooth (organ-level) or biological restoration of individual components (enamel, dentin, cementum, or dental pulp).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3179624/
A major mechanistic review frame for tooth regeneration emphasizes organ-level regeneration goals but also highlights feasibility concerns for matching the size/shape/occlusion and full functional requirements of teeth in humans.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5341797/
Textbook-style organogenesis framing: after crown completion, root formation is initiated, with cementum formed later by cementoblasts from dental follicle mesenchyme; this is part of why “root-to-crown” replacement requires coordinated multi-tissue development processes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27071/
A root-development review explicitly frames the “root” as crucial physiologically and notes processes are required for future tooth regeneration (i.e., root biology is not just a prosthetic surrogate).
https://www.nature.com/articles/ijos201261
Adult humans generally lack a readily reactivated, conserved developmental program that produces a new functional tooth: reviews highlight the dependence of tooth root formation on complex cellular structures (including Hertwig’s epithelial root sheath, cranial neural crest-derived components, and stem-cell involvement) and coordinated signaling.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5341797/
Tooth organogenesis is a tightly staged embryonic-like process (crown→root transitions), which underpins why adult regrowth is difficult to reproduce therapeutically: “regeneration” would need to re-run multiple developmental stages and tissue interactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27071/
Authoritative root-development review: crown-to-root transition signaling involves reciprocal interactions among multiple pathways including TGF-β, BMP, Wnt, Shh, Fgf, and homeobox genes; BMP and FGF signaling are implicated in HERS (Hertwig’s epithelial root sheath) induction before root development.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3633063/
BMP signaling review: after crown formation, the outer enamel epithelium and inner enamel epithelium form Hertwig’s epithelial root sheath (HERS); BMP signaling is discussed as influencing root dentinogenesis and the molecular transition from crown to root (including BMP–Wnt interaction).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10540449/
Wnt signaling in postnatal tooth root development review lists multiple pathways orchestrating tooth root development, explicitly including Wnt, BMP, Shh, and TGF-β (among others) and links these processes to HERS-mediated root formation.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/dental-medicine/articles/10.3389/fdmed.2021.769134/full
Review evidence: disruption of HERS or pulp stem cells in animal/human developmental contexts disturbs root development—supporting the idea that adult tooth regeneration requires reinstating (or bypassing) HERS-mediated guidance to produce root structures properly.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5341797/
Human histological review: the cervical loop is described as a key transition zone where inner and outer enamel epithelia proliferate apically to form Hertwig’s epithelial root sheath (a bilayer structure responsible for guiding root elongation and patterning).
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/13/6209
Tooth root ontogeny review: it explicitly frames the biological phases of root formation and says that understanding these mechanisms is a prerequisite for “next-generation” biological root regeneration that restores physiological structure and function (implying current limitations in humans).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-023-00258-9
Clinical concept distinction: remineralization of enamel is the natural repair process for non-cavitated lesions via deposition of minerals (e.g., calcium/phosphate, sometimes fluoride) into demineralized enamel crystal voids—this is not whole-tooth or pulp/PDL regeneration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remineralisation_of_teeth
Mechanistic implication: root development is staged and depends on HERS and signaling transitions; therefore, enamel remineralization mechanisms in adults do not substitute for root/crown-pulp–PDL coordinated development required for whole-tooth regeneration.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5341797/
Major organization framing of periodontal regeneration: ADA describes periodontal treatment goals as eliminating plaque/biofilm/calculus and notes that periodontal regenerative approaches may use membranes, bone grafts, and tissue-stimulating proteins to promote regeneration of supporting periodontal tissues (attachment/bone), while the goal is not whole-tooth replacement.
https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/periodontitis
Periodontal/whole-tooth regeneration remains mechanistically difficult in humans: reviews consistently frame “regeneration” as dependent on reconstituting specific tissue microenvironments and developmental programs (not just healing).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-023-00258-9
Denture longevity benchmark: NCBI Bookshelf (systematic review summary) reports complete denture failure rates ranging between 0% and 20% before 5-year follow-up, and suggests most dentures show longevity across 5 years (this provides a realistic ‘today’ comparison standard to regeneration).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK596306/
Implants today: StatPearls (NCBI Bookshelf) summarizes high success rates, describing dental implants as having success above 97% for 10 years (note: “success”/definitions vary by study).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470448/
Long-term survival evidence: a systematic review with sensitivity meta-analysis reports a pooled 10-year implant survival estimate of 96.4% (95% CI 95.2%–97.5%), providing a data-backed counterpoint to experimental regeneration timelines.
https://www.livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3041376/
Japanese regulator/news artifact: a dated AMED document is associated with selecting the final development candidate TRG035 (human anti-USAG-1 antibody), supporting that a specific molecular-target approach is advancing toward/into human studies.
https://www.amed.go.jp/news/seika/files/000127493.pdf
Kitano Hospital (Japan) communication: it states a human anti-USAG-1 antibody clinical trial is being prepared with collaboration involving Kitano Hospital and TreGem BioPharma, and references AMED involvement for TRG035 for tooth regeneration in congenital edentulism/tooth loss context.
https://www.kitano-hp.or.jp/english/info/20240503/?style=whats-new
Peer-reviewed translational framing: a 2023 journal article PDF (Regenerative Therapy) discusses USAG-1 antibodies for tooth regeneration and frames clinical trial considerations (including the notion that the therapy has potential to rescue developmental tooth primordia).
https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/285276/1/j.reth.2023.01.004.pdf
Recent review (3 months old at crawl time): states USAG-1 inhibition is founded on preclinical studies where anti-USAG-1 approaches enabled regeneration of anatomically complete and functional teeth, and it describes that Phase I at Kyoto University Hospital initiated in 2024 for acquired tooth loss to evaluate safety/tolerability and preliminary efficacy (note: clinical trial results may not yet be peer-reviewed).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12867463/
Company milestone page: Toregem describes TRG035 (anti-USAG-1 antibody) as an orphan-drug designated therapy context for congenital oligodontia/severe anodontia (used as a clue to regulatory pathway and patient population focus).
https://toregem.co.jp/en/
Human imaging biomarker milestone: a 2026 ScienceDirect entry states imaging biomarkers as surrogate endpoints are being considered for permanent tooth regeneration in congenital tooth agenesis, and references TRG035 as humanized anti-USAG-1 antibody developed for molecular-targeted therapy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1349007926000435
EMA CTIS transparency milestone: EMA states the public CTIS site provides detailed information for clinical trials in the EU/EEA based on CTIS content from 31 January 2022 onward, enabling verification of trial status and details.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/research-development/clinical-trials-human-medicines/clinical-trials-information-system
ClinicalTrials.gov example of endpoints/eligibility style relevant to regeneration trials: a regenerative endodontics trial record includes explicit inclusion criteria such as immature permanent anterior teeth diagnosed with pulp necrosis (with or without periapical lesions), demonstrating how patient eligibility and outcomes are specified in registries.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07252167
ClinicalTrials.gov inclusion/exclusion framing: ClinicalTrials.gov guidance explains that eligibility criteria comprise required inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, and outlines how trial dates relate to enrollment/visits and primary outcome collection windows.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/find-studies/how-to-use-search-results
FDA informed consent safety emphasis: FDA states no investigator may involve human subjects without legally effective informed consent and requires that risks associated with the investigation be reasonable in relation to what is known about the condition and standard therapy (contextual benchmark for consumer-level “what safety questions to ask”).
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/investigational-device-exemption-ide/ide-informed-consent
FDA regulatory framing of regenerative medicine: FDA defines regenerative medicine therapy broadly as certain cell/tissue engineering products and explains it as a defined regulatory category (useful to distinguish true regulated “regenerative” products from unapproved marketing).
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/regenerative-medicine-advanced-therapy-designation
ADA on today’s replacement standards: ADA describes that denture prostheses can be non-implant-retained or implant-retained, and recommends removable dentures be replaced when more than ~5 years has passed since fabrication (showing a practical ‘timeline’ to compare against regeneration).
https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/dentures
Key signaling/molecular reason tooth regrowth doesn’t trivially occur in adults: BMP/Wnt interactions and HERS formation are described as crucial developmental control points; adult therapies would need to recreate these inter-tissue epithelial/mesenchymal signaling architectures to regenerate root-to-crown structures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/PMC10540449

Can humans grow new teeth? Evidence on regeneration science, what works today, and realistic replacement options

Learn why humans don’t grow back adult teeth, what natural healing can do, and today’s options like implants and bridges

Myth-busting answer on whether adults can regrow teeth, plus real options like implants, crowns, and orthodontics.

