Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is now clear that intentionally implanted devices, in this case silver point wires permanently fixed in various areas of the plaintiff's mouth during the course of root-canal therapy, cannot be considered "foreign objects" within the meaning of CPLR 214-a (cf., Goldsmith v. Howmedica, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 120, 122, n 3; see, Lombardi v. DeLuca, 130 A.D.2d 632, lv granted 70 N.Y.2d 612; Mitchell v. Abitol, 130 A.D.2d 633). Therefore, the plaintiff's contention that, because the wires in or underneath two teeth improperly extruded into soft gum tissue, these wires became "foreign objects" which "contributed" to the deterioration of the plaintiff's mouth but which were allegedly not discovered until six years after completion of treatment is without merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.