As far as your specific question is concerned, I would say that the English translation’s use of “real teeth” is just an unfortunate choice by the translators. The idea in the other two languages is of actual, concrete form. The Italian is more concrete than the German but the English is too loose. But I wouldn’t place much weight on it—just an infelicitous translating choice in English. The Latin version probably won’t resolve anything. I’d just take the German and Italian together as pointing toward “concrete form,” which is probably a weaker way of putting it than “real teeth.” In some ways, I could wish that the Italian had had something closer to an expression like “real teeth” at this spot. But it didn’t and therefore it should not have been translated as “real teeth.”
It won't, as people will use this toward their own ends. You're right as far as that goes.
However, for those of us who want to know what is really said, the Latin version is the authoritative version of any document (the Latin version is the one published in the Acte Apostolicae Sedis), so if there are references to teeth in Latin, then it's teeth...if not, then the English is a bad translation that supports a certain agenda (whether intentionally done by a staffer or merely accidental) and should be suppressed.