First law of dentistry: Any innovation that does not increase dentist margin, will not reach market.
To expand on this argument. I think even medical health care is more open to innovation that mainly benefits consumer health. Doctors are kind of oblivious of the cost of procedures. This has a host of other problems, but at least innovation and health outcomes are aligned (and less aligned with cost). Dentists are massively private equity owned where I live. Bottom line is everything. You notice that where you’re in the chair. Six minute procedures (the billing time) always take seven. Kids are state insured and always get upsold to whatever procedure is fashionable (or should I say: has the highest margin). I have a strong feeling innovations are swallowed up and shelved in this sector. It makes sense for the PE to kill innovation once you have a market cornered.
The only thing this anti market rant (not my usual spiel) does not have is an explanation for how PE coordinates the suppression of innovation. I should look into the owners of the parties that deliver the dentist supplies and machinery. That would be the best way to corner a market, by owning the supply chain as well.
I understand the negative outlook, but consider that this invention, being less-invasive, could be a draw to some patients. With the saturation of dental offices, some are trying to position themselves as higher-end "spas" with gentle-touch services and/or for people with sensory issues. So it's not just margin, it can also be market-share oriented.
Despite the headline, this is not a toothbrush. This is a "toothbrush-shaped ultrasound transducer". Mind you, I don't know why this wouldn't "increase dentist margin". This is an analysis tool that makes dentistry easier (just like dental X-rays).
I swear I had a toothbrush with a knob that dispensed toothpaste - AquaFresh I think - in the 1990s/early 2000s. But it's the kind of ephemeral product I can't find any record of.
"The Department of Health and Human Services is directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make new recommendations on the addition of fluoride to U.S. water sources. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has blamed the fluoridation of water for a number of health problems."
Calgary, AB JUST added fluoridation back to the city water today. It doesn't likely have a huge impact for people who can afford and get regular dental care, but for a huge segment of the population could be very impactful, and the majority of health and dental practitioners are happy with this change. We have a whole generation of data from when they removed it a decade-plus ago, so statistics should be pretty solid over the coming years.
I don't care for the current admin nor RFK Jr, but this is a bit disingenuous. Floride toothpaste and floridated drinking water are different things, and RFK hasn't said anything about attacking the former. This jab doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
I heard there was some area in USA where all water is naturally fluoridated and people had abnormally strong teeth and so they started using it in toothpaste after that, maybe it's a myth
> The products targeted by the FDA are sometimes recommended for children and teens who are at increased risk of tooth decay or cavities because of low fluoride in their local drinking water. They usually require a prescription from a pediatrician or dentist. Fluoride-based tablets and lozenges are designed to be chewed or swallowed. Companies also sell drops for babies and infants.
And other politicians:
> Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into the marketing of fluoride toothpastes by Colgate-Palmolive and Proctor and Gamble. A press release from his office described the companies’ promotions as “misleading, deceptive and dangerous.”
It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects. Well AMA just published a meta-analysis this year linking high fluoride level in drinking water to neurotoxicity in children and lower IQ.
While there’s insufficient data to say it’s neurotoxic at the recommended levels it doesn’t seem unlikely. Rather it should be required to be proven safe first.
> The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children. The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone. It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.
It seems unlikely we’d have such issues at concentrations so commonly found in natural springs. Much of the world doesn’t add it because it’s already at those levels naturally and has been throughout billions of years.
The question is at what point you should spend money removing it as many communities are forced to, not just how much to add.
That’s just the naturalistic fallacy. I’m sure there are some places in the world with lead or cadmium or whatever in their water - does that mean we should be adding it to our water supplies if we found out it was good for our teeth at the detriment of our brains?
No, there’s a difference between something being rare and it being common. Fish species living in the ocean don’t have issues drinking salt water, because if they did their ancestors wouldn’t have reproduced.
If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic.
> If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic.
Not necessarily true if the effect is relatively small compared to other evolutionary pressures. A few points drop in IQ might not be bad for ancient hunter-gatherer tribes but does have a much larger impact in our modern age. Every point increase of average IQ at the population level generally leads to better societal outcomes overall.
To your earlier question, filtering flouride might be beneficial then. We can do flouride teeth treatments at dentists or switch more to nano-hydroxyapatite [1]. Though it'd seem nano-hydroxyapatite needs more safety studies as well.
The underlying biochemical problem would show up long before hunter gatherers, the equivalent of a 2-3% drop in IQ across billions of years is massive pressure to find a solution. Brains are a major calorie sink that’s a big enough difference to matter.
If it’s a 0.0001% drop then sure evolution would ignore that, but so should we.
> It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects.
Dihydrogen monoxide has significant negative effects, too. It kills thousands every year. It causes severe burns. It can corrode metal. We still, uh, don't ban it from the water supply.
I don't think we should be adding toxins to the water supply for any reason. I don't think exposing every living person to toxins because some people don't care to brush their teeth is very good logic. How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it?
No I don't support RFK lunatic BS. I just don't like the idea of any potential toxin being blanked added to the population intentionally. Something like that should have lots of skepticism and require massive amounts of proof that it is worth the possible downsides. The government can barely be trusted to operate intelligently when human lives are not at stake.
> How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it?
Regular daily testing (and sometimes hourly), as mandated by law. https://www.cityofrochester.gov/2024-water-quality-report "To ensure optimal dental protection, the State Department of Health requires that we monitor fluoride levels on a daily basis."
Hell, we do daily testing of the beach water in my state, let alone the drinking supply. They close them if stuff like E. coli is too high.
I filter chlorine from all my home water. I just don't like it's smell taste.
Cholrine has a toxic PPM of something like 400
Floride has a toxic PPM of like 2.
Its not the same.
I've seen numerous reports over the years where poor area water departments have had malfunctioning equipment for many years before anyone noticed. Despite all these "required" tests. After all if the watchers don't care who watches them? How about if the watchers just phone it in?
I’d like to ask you to do a mental exercise, sincerely. Whenever you find yourself using the word “toxin”, define it for yourself. What is a toxin, in specific terms?
This is a nebulous term that is most frequently used by quacks and snake oil salesmen to make a claim of health that can never be proven or disproven.
I’m not asking you for a reply to me, you can keep it for yourself, but I think if you do this, you’ll find yourself questioning whether or not you are propagating pseudoscience and it will lead you to better rational thought.
I know some of the nuances of "toxin" for instance water has a toxicity limit. Its not an toxic/not toxic line.
I'm not saying floride is bad/good. Just that I don't trust the government and its often very low quality workers to properly dispense a chemical with tight toxicity tolerances. Especially when it's purpose is basically to benifit people whom don't have the desire to take care of themselves. Why do I have to be exposed to something unwillingly because other people are lazy?
> I don't trust the government and its often very low quality workers to properly dispense a chemical with tight toxicity tolerances.
I have never particularly heard anyone regard civil engineers as "low quality workers" - but you don't have to trust. Water fluoridation levels can be measured for about $20 with a mail in kit, or you could even get a specialized interferometer for a couple hundred. It should be noted that we already measure these levels in municipal water facilities though.
> Especially when it's purpose is basically to benifit people whom don't have the desire to take care of themselves. Why do I have to be exposed to something unwillingly because other people are lazy?
The primary benefit of water fluoridation is the dental health of developing children and the destitute poor.
I don't really want to get into an ideological argument on hacker news, suffice to say "you should care about other people because that is how a society functions." Case in point, fluoride in my water would make my medication stop working. I still support it in the water I can't even drink without filtering because it's a net benefit to society that ultimately impacts me positively in numerous ways.
>particularly heard anyone regard civil engineers as "low quality workers"
You still haven't. I never specified such a thing. Nice straw-man though.
On a side note I wasn't even thinking about this but I actually personally know two civil engineers(or did). One is a gambling addict. The other moved to a different state because he researched that they had more prostitutes there. I promise you the public welfare is low on their list of concerns.
I do care. However when the government is involved care is often manipulated(think of the children) into giving unquestioned authority against people's best interest because its for their own good after all....
In your sentence, "I think" refers to people knowing what supplements they need to keep their teeth healthy. What @lofaszvanitt was asking was for more information about those needed supplements, not whether or not people knew about them
In the 1970s it was all the rage that there were patents on 200 mpg carburetors, but the oil companies bought the patents in order to suppress those carburetors.
I asked my dad about it (career Air Force). He laughed and said that gasoline consumption was a major logistics problem for the military. If there were 100 mpg carburetors, the military was going to use them, and to hell with any patent blockade.
(Note all the problems the Germans had in WW2 when the US severely damaged their oil refineries.)
Interesting, all of the ones you cite are older than 20 years, so the patents should have long expired and should be free for anyone to bring to market?
I am a big believer in this. Dentistry is one of the largest grifts in modern medicine, I would put it up there with Chiropractors. Go see 5 dentists and you will get 5 wildly different opinions. I am certain there are good ones out there but it’s way too hard to evaluate.
Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I don't have much faith in Chiropractors, because the science is thin or inconclusive, but dental health is much more obvious. There are a billion procedures you can get done and I would agree that things like polishing are of limited value, but the imaging, checkups and repairs are very valuable in my mind. I've never heard of someone going to a Chiropractor for primarily preventative reasons.
> Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I have had a lot of dental work done, including 4 implants. But I don't remember a _single_ dental prescription-only item.
Since you have never experienced it, it therefore does not exist.
I have purchased specific pastes from Japan that are OTC there but not in the states, prescription only. I also use a dental appliance at night mid 4 figure costs, it’s 3d printed, the office uses a scanner to create the cad or equivalent to print. Very little hands on but huge margins. Very hard to to find a doctor using a brand I like and even then the dentist does little to nothing in the whole process.
I've had at least three prescription dental products: Fluoride lacquers (can cause fluorosis supposedly so not without risk), chlorhexidine antiseptic mouth rinse, 3M Clinpro 5000 toothpaste (high fluoride again).
I've had only a quarter as many implants so I guess it just depends.
Just wait until you look into treatments for dry eye. Bunch of different expensive drugs and therapies. Not covered by insurance. All of them "work for some people" and do nothing for others, and there's no way to tell ahead of time for most of the treatments.
I would not be too sure of this with current administration upheaval. The health system is broken in bad and good ways now. If you build it, it can succeed much to the chagrin of well paid dental 'experts'
OT: Why is 2 minutes still the recommended time to brush your teeth for (by the ADA)?
Lets say the baseline is 100 vibrations or brushes (or swipes) per minute for a manual toothbrush.
If an electric toothbrush vibrates 8000 times per minute (or any other measurable metric), then shouldn't the amount of time you need to brush for be lowered?
Seems like the whole brush your teeth for 2 minutes was just a very general guideline but was never updated to be very scientific since the introduction of electric toothbrushes.
Also, can we have electric toothbrushes advertise vibrations per minute? or some other metric like that?
It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker.
As others have already mentioned, it's more about general guidance ensuring you're actually getting all your teeth. Plus, you want to have the flouride toothpaste actually on your teeth for some period of time.
If you want to see if you're actually brushing enough, change up your strategy and use plaque disclosing tablets to see if you're still adequately hitting everything.
> It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker
Probably related to people brushing their teeth too hard with these more powerful toothbrushes.
It still takes 2 minutes to clean your teeth, even with the highest end ultrasonic. That is because you have to go tooth by tooth getting all angles.
Yes, it is impossible to clean your teeth as well with a normal brush in the same 2 minutes, but that doesn't mean that under 2 minutes of ultrasonic will suffice.
Like just because an elevator moves twice as fast doesn't mean you can go from 2 elevators to 1 and still service all floors with the same standard.
I always thought the 2 mins was to make sure fluoridated toothpaste sits on your teeth for long enough to work. Number of brushes is only one angle of why you brush.
This sounds cool, my dentist is probably even cool enough to buy one when it's fda approved, but like the "wave form analysis" device they bought this year, it will only be used for specialist purposes and can't be used to replace x rays, or in this case periodontal proving, and almost entirely because of the slow moving insurance industry. (I even asked how much I could pay cash to replace x rays, because fuck radiation, the answer was we have to x ray you)
Radiation is radiation. We didn't evolve to perfectly handle the exact amount of radiation we'd receive naturally, nor do we struggle with any deviation from that. (Of course, not much XRay makes it down to sea level, but still)
XRay is pretty finessed at this point. It's an incredibly brief burst with as little power to it as feasible. It's not like ye olden days where people just blasted themselves with radiation not realizing the danger. The knowledge and tech is really sophisticated these days - it's as minimal as possible.
And if you don't get any XRays done, will you then decide to do more flying? Do you really budget your radiation exposure that closely? I'd be way more worried about things like nearby coal plants - both in terms of radiation and other health effects. Or Radon in a basement. Or smoke from nearby wildfires. Almost anything else nearby is a bigger source of health risk than ocassional XRays.
If we're looking at an individuals health over their life, the increase in detection (or even just earlier detection) of all sorts of health issues using Xrays vastly increases average life expectancy compared to the tiny cost of the XRays themselves. It's not even close to the same order of magnitude.
I get that sometimes doctors or dentists do unnecessary imaging of all kinds, and that sucks. It's costly in terms of time and money. But I'd much rather that then the alternative.
In Finland there is a profession called dental hygienist, whom I visit once a year. They clean up my teeth with an ultrasound device since many years, removing tartar.
That's called an ultrasonic scaler, which is quite different to the device in the article. A scaler is for removing tartar and stain while the device in the article is an ultrasound (like the device for viewing babies during pregnancy) which looks under your gums at your tooth roots and bones to see if you have any bone loss or gum disease.
You might not have the dentist or dental hygienist use the probe very often. When they do it's a rounded straight tip device, and they usually call out numbers to an assistant for how deep under the gumline the probe can reach. That's the procedure this device would replace. If nothing else it's an improvement because you don't need an assistant to record the numbers, and if someone has bad gum disease it might hurt them when you poke in there with a probe.
I went 14 years between dental visits, and the move to ultrasound cleaning was the biggest change I noticed. The cleaning had always been a bloody affair, scraping and scratching in a way that would leave me with a throbbing pain after my appointment was ove. The ultrasound cleaning was like science fiction.
In the US most visit that person twice a year. They have that ultrasound machine, but they only use it on people who don't visit that often - the machine just gets the build up do the point where manual tools can finish the job. If you brush/floss and visit regularly the manual tools are all they need.
In this was at least it looks like the US system is better. Of course there is no way nuance can be expressed in a short forum like this, but maybe you need to look at the Finland system to see if it is really good enough.
For the patient with an ultrasonic scaler in their mouth, are you saying that that a significant percentage of harmful noise is coming in through the ear canal, so conventional ear protection would help?
First law of dentistry: Any innovation that does not increase dentist margin, will not reach market.
To expand on this argument. I think even medical health care is more open to innovation that mainly benefits consumer health. Doctors are kind of oblivious of the cost of procedures. This has a host of other problems, but at least innovation and health outcomes are aligned (and less aligned with cost). Dentists are massively private equity owned where I live. Bottom line is everything. You notice that where you’re in the chair. Six minute procedures (the billing time) always take seven. Kids are state insured and always get upsold to whatever procedure is fashionable (or should I say: has the highest margin). I have a strong feeling innovations are swallowed up and shelved in this sector. It makes sense for the PE to kill innovation once you have a market cornered.
The only thing this anti market rant (not my usual spiel) does not have is an explanation for how PE coordinates the suppression of innovation. I should look into the owners of the parties that deliver the dentist supplies and machinery. That would be the best way to corner a market, by owning the supply chain as well.
I understand the negative outlook, but consider that this invention, being less-invasive, could be a draw to some patients. With the saturation of dental offices, some are trying to position themselves as higher-end "spas" with gentle-touch services and/or for people with sensory issues. So it's not just margin, it can also be market-share oriented.
this is just a product that is easier to use?
i dont see why it couldnt reach the market
Fluoride based toothpaste does not increase dentist margin though right?
> toothpaste is usually self-administered haha
very funny. this is a toothbrush, unless you have someone brush your teeth it is always self administered
Despite the headline, this is not a toothbrush. This is a "toothbrush-shaped ultrasound transducer". Mind you, I don't know why this wouldn't "increase dentist margin". This is an analysis tool that makes dentistry easier (just like dental X-rays).
First introduced in 1914! Suppressing a current practice is way harder than suppressing an innovation via buy-and-die.
True.
toothpaste is usually self-administered haha
This could be an innovation: toothbrush with built-in toothpaste dispenser.
From 2011: https://techcrunch.com/2011/03/22/actually-a-good-idea-tooth...
I swear I had a toothbrush with a knob that dispensed toothpaste - AquaFresh I think - in the 1990s/early 2000s. But it's the kind of ephemeral product I can't find any record of.
Nice find. However, I'm using an electric toothbrush. And the dispensing could be more automatic.
Ok, then: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nest-brush-self-dispensin...
Already a product, typically/always marketed as a travel toothbrush.
> Fluoride based toothpaste does not increase dentist margin though right?
I mean, that's under attack now.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/10/g-s1-59452/hhs-rfk-fluoride-d...
"The Department of Health and Human Services is directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make new recommendations on the addition of fluoride to U.S. water sources. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has blamed the fluoridation of water for a number of health problems."
Calgary, AB JUST added fluoridation back to the city water today. It doesn't likely have a huge impact for people who can afford and get regular dental care, but for a huge segment of the population could be very impactful, and the majority of health and dental practitioners are happy with this change. We have a whole generation of data from when they removed it a decade-plus ago, so statistics should be pretty solid over the coming years.
I don't care for the current admin nor RFK Jr, but this is a bit disingenuous. Floride toothpaste and floridated drinking water are different things, and RFK hasn't said anything about attacking the former. This jab doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
I heard there was some area in USA where all water is naturally fluoridated and people had abnormally strong teeth and so they started using it in toothpaste after that, maybe it's a myth
Fearmongering about fluoride is unlikely to stop at the water supply.
RFK has already made moves in this direction: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-and-rfk-jr-aim-to-re...
> The products targeted by the FDA are sometimes recommended for children and teens who are at increased risk of tooth decay or cavities because of low fluoride in their local drinking water. They usually require a prescription from a pediatrician or dentist. Fluoride-based tablets and lozenges are designed to be chewed or swallowed. Companies also sell drops for babies and infants.
And other politicians:
> Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into the marketing of fluoride toothpastes by Colgate-Palmolive and Proctor and Gamble. A press release from his office described the companies’ promotions as “misleading, deceptive and dangerous.”
It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects. Well AMA just published a meta-analysis this year linking high fluoride level in drinking water to neurotoxicity in children and lower IQ.
While there’s insufficient data to say it’s neurotoxic at the recommended levels it doesn’t seem unlikely. Rather it should be required to be proven safe first.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/assessments/noncancer/com...
> The NTP monograph concluded, with moderate confidence, that higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children. The NTP review was designed to evaluate total fluoride exposure from all sources and was not designed to evaluate the health effects of fluoridated drinking water alone. It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.
> doesn’t seem unlikely.
It seems unlikely we’d have such issues at concentrations so commonly found in natural springs. Much of the world doesn’t add it because it’s already at those levels naturally and has been throughout billions of years.
The question is at what point you should spend money removing it as many communities are forced to, not just how much to add.
That’s just the naturalistic fallacy. I’m sure there are some places in the world with lead or cadmium or whatever in their water - does that mean we should be adding it to our water supplies if we found out it was good for our teeth at the detriment of our brains?
No, there’s a difference between something being rare and it being common. Fish species living in the ocean don’t have issues drinking salt water, because if they did their ancestors wouldn’t have reproduced.
If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic.
> If half of the world’s water supplies had lead levels of X you’d expect evolution to make that specific level a non issue. Obviously lead levels above that can and are still problematic.
Not necessarily true if the effect is relatively small compared to other evolutionary pressures. A few points drop in IQ might not be bad for ancient hunter-gatherer tribes but does have a much larger impact in our modern age. Every point increase of average IQ at the population level generally leads to better societal outcomes overall.
To your earlier question, filtering flouride might be beneficial then. We can do flouride teeth treatments at dentists or switch more to nano-hydroxyapatite [1]. Though it'd seem nano-hydroxyapatite needs more safety studies as well.
1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747619/
The underlying biochemical problem would show up long before hunter gatherers, the equivalent of a 2-3% drop in IQ across billions of years is massive pressure to find a solution. Brains are a major calorie sink that’s a big enough difference to matter.
If it’s a 0.0001% drop then sure evolution would ignore that, but so should we.
> It’s not fear mongering if fluoride actually does have negative effects.
Dihydrogen monoxide has significant negative effects, too. It kills thousands every year. It causes severe burns. It can corrode metal. We still, uh, don't ban it from the water supply.
(We've come close, though. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4534017)
I don't doubt that high levels of a thing can be bad. Your own quote acknowledges this "the dose makes the poison" aspect of things.
I don't think we should be adding toxins to the water supply for any reason. I don't think exposing every living person to toxins because some people don't care to brush their teeth is very good logic. How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it?
No I don't support RFK lunatic BS. I just don't like the idea of any potential toxin being blanked added to the population intentionally. Something like that should have lots of skepticism and require massive amounts of proof that it is worth the possible downsides. The government can barely be trusted to operate intelligently when human lives are not at stake.
> I don't think we should be adding toxins to the water supply for any reason.
What, no chlorine to kill bacteria?
Water is a toxin! https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/water-intoxic...
> How do you know some poorly run, underfunded water department doesn't have a malfunctioning fluoride mixer until after you have brain damage from it?
Regular daily testing (and sometimes hourly), as mandated by law. https://www.cityofrochester.gov/2024-water-quality-report "To ensure optimal dental protection, the State Department of Health requires that we monitor fluoride levels on a daily basis."
Hell, we do daily testing of the beach water in my state, let alone the drinking supply. They close them if stuff like E. coli is too high.
I filter chlorine from all my home water. I just don't like it's smell taste.
Cholrine has a toxic PPM of something like 400 Floride has a toxic PPM of like 2.
Its not the same.
I've seen numerous reports over the years where poor area water departments have had malfunctioning equipment for many years before anyone noticed. Despite all these "required" tests. After all if the watchers don't care who watches them? How about if the watchers just phone it in?
> Cholrine has a toxic PPM of something like 400 Floride has a toxic PPM of like 2. It’s not the same.
So what? That’s why the EPA sets a maximum level of both, independently.
> I've seen numerous reports over the years where poor area water departments have had malfunctioning equipment for many years before anyone noticed.
Not every bit of equipment is safety critical. If you’d like we can discuss a specific case.
I’d like to ask you to do a mental exercise, sincerely. Whenever you find yourself using the word “toxin”, define it for yourself. What is a toxin, in specific terms?
This is a nebulous term that is most frequently used by quacks and snake oil salesmen to make a claim of health that can never be proven or disproven.
I’m not asking you for a reply to me, you can keep it for yourself, but I think if you do this, you’ll find yourself questioning whether or not you are propagating pseudoscience and it will lead you to better rational thought.
I know some of the nuances of "toxin" for instance water has a toxicity limit. Its not an toxic/not toxic line.
I'm not saying floride is bad/good. Just that I don't trust the government and its often very low quality workers to properly dispense a chemical with tight toxicity tolerances. Especially when it's purpose is basically to benifit people whom don't have the desire to take care of themselves. Why do I have to be exposed to something unwillingly because other people are lazy?
> I don't trust the government and its often very low quality workers to properly dispense a chemical with tight toxicity tolerances.
I have never particularly heard anyone regard civil engineers as "low quality workers" - but you don't have to trust. Water fluoridation levels can be measured for about $20 with a mail in kit, or you could even get a specialized interferometer for a couple hundred. It should be noted that we already measure these levels in municipal water facilities though.
> Especially when it's purpose is basically to benifit people whom don't have the desire to take care of themselves. Why do I have to be exposed to something unwillingly because other people are lazy?
The primary benefit of water fluoridation is the dental health of developing children and the destitute poor.
I don't really want to get into an ideological argument on hacker news, suffice to say "you should care about other people because that is how a society functions." Case in point, fluoride in my water would make my medication stop working. I still support it in the water I can't even drink without filtering because it's a net benefit to society that ultimately impacts me positively in numerous ways.
>particularly heard anyone regard civil engineers as "low quality workers"
You still haven't. I never specified such a thing. Nice straw-man though.
On a side note I wasn't even thinking about this but I actually personally know two civil engineers(or did). One is a gambling addict. The other moved to a different state because he researched that they had more prostitutes there. I promise you the public welfare is low on their list of concerns.
I do care. However when the government is involved care is often manipulated(think of the children) into giving unquestioned authority against people's best interest because its for their own good after all....
Fluoride as ingredient is questionable for human heath despite of what the marketing spread
Do you have any reputable evidence that fluorinated toothpaste is harmful (assuming normal usage)?
This is not exactly your point but, there is data for fluoride not being good for pregnant women.
Because of how ubiquitous fluorinated toothpaste is the argument for adding it to water supplies is significantly reduced.
I heard something about fluoride and gut, don't know if pseudoscience. Anyway benefit to teeth is more important
I think most of the people do not even know how much calcium or other supplements they need on a daily or weekly basis to keep their teeth healthy.
Can you point to the research?
Reading comprehension? "I think..."
In your sentence, "I think" refers to people knowing what supplements they need to keep their teeth healthy. What @lofaszvanitt was asking was for more information about those needed supplements, not whether or not people knew about them
the quack geese told so, yeah
My favorite conspiracy theory stuff are the multiple unused caries vaccine patents by the dental care industry.
In the 1970s it was all the rage that there were patents on 200 mpg carburetors, but the oil companies bought the patents in order to suppress those carburetors.
I asked my dad about it (career Air Force). He laughed and said that gasoline consumption was a major logistics problem for the military. If there were 100 mpg carburetors, the military was going to use them, and to hell with any patent blockade.
(Note all the problems the Germans had in WW2 when the US severely damaged their oil refineries.)
Do you mind picking to some of these? I did a quick Google patents search but didn't find anything.
Colgate Palmolive 1973: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3931398A/en
Merck & Co 1979: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4287173A/en
Lion Corp 1983: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4693888A/en
In all likelihood these just didn't work, but the commercial interest to not have caries immunization is just too juicy not to theorize!
Interesting, all of the ones you cite are older than 20 years, so the patents should have long expired and should be free for anyone to bring to market?
I am a big believer in this. Dentistry is one of the largest grifts in modern medicine, I would put it up there with Chiropractors. Go see 5 dentists and you will get 5 wildly different opinions. I am certain there are good ones out there but it’s way too hard to evaluate.
Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I don't have much faith in Chiropractors, because the science is thin or inconclusive, but dental health is much more obvious. There are a billion procedures you can get done and I would agree that things like polishing are of limited value, but the imaging, checkups and repairs are very valuable in my mind. I've never heard of someone going to a Chiropractor for primarily preventative reasons.
Is that not the whole business model. Go to a chiropractor to get adjusted for health and wellness.
I never said dentists don’t provide valuable care, teeth cleanings are great, checkups are great. Most of the business side is a total grift thought.
> Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I have had a lot of dental work done, including 4 implants. But I don't remember a _single_ dental prescription-only item.
Since you have never experienced it, it therefore does not exist.
I have purchased specific pastes from Japan that are OTC there but not in the states, prescription only. I also use a dental appliance at night mid 4 figure costs, it’s 3d printed, the office uses a scanner to create the cad or equivalent to print. Very little hands on but huge margins. Very hard to to find a doctor using a brand I like and even then the dentist does little to nothing in the whole process.
I've had at least three prescription dental products: Fluoride lacquers (can cause fluorosis supposedly so not without risk), chlorhexidine antiseptic mouth rinse, 3M Clinpro 5000 toothpaste (high fluoride again).
I've had only a quarter as many implants so I guess it just depends.
Hm. It looks like high-fluoride toothpastes are indeed Rx-only in the US, but it's not difficult to get them online without a prescription.
Chlorhexidine mouthwash is OTC.
What is your point. You have gotten multiple examples but keep trying to refute it?
Just wait until you look into treatments for dry eye. Bunch of different expensive drugs and therapies. Not covered by insurance. All of them "work for some people" and do nothing for others, and there's no way to tell ahead of time for most of the treatments.
I would not be too sure of this with current administration upheaval. The health system is broken in bad and good ways now. If you build it, it can succeed much to the chagrin of well paid dental 'experts'
Check this : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4252862/ This is a flouride alternative and seems to help teeth recover faster.
OT: Why is 2 minutes still the recommended time to brush your teeth for (by the ADA)? Lets say the baseline is 100 vibrations or brushes (or swipes) per minute for a manual toothbrush.
If an electric toothbrush vibrates 8000 times per minute (or any other measurable metric), then shouldn't the amount of time you need to brush for be lowered?
Seems like the whole brush your teeth for 2 minutes was just a very general guideline but was never updated to be very scientific since the introduction of electric toothbrushes.
Also, can we have electric toothbrushes advertise vibrations per minute? or some other metric like that?
It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker.
As others have already mentioned, it's more about general guidance ensuring you're actually getting all your teeth. Plus, you want to have the flouride toothpaste actually on your teeth for some period of time.
If you want to see if you're actually brushing enough, change up your strategy and use plaque disclosing tablets to see if you're still adequately hitting everything.
> It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker
Probably related to people brushing their teeth too hard with these more powerful toothbrushes.
It still takes 2 minutes to clean your teeth, even with the highest end ultrasonic. That is because you have to go tooth by tooth getting all angles.
Yes, it is impossible to clean your teeth as well with a normal brush in the same 2 minutes, but that doesn't mean that under 2 minutes of ultrasonic will suffice.
Like just because an elevator moves twice as fast doesn't mean you can go from 2 elevators to 1 and still service all floors with the same standard.
I always thought the 2 mins was to make sure fluoridated toothpaste sits on your teeth for long enough to work. Number of brushes is only one angle of why you brush.
This sounds cool, my dentist is probably even cool enough to buy one when it's fda approved, but like the "wave form analysis" device they bought this year, it will only be used for specialist purposes and can't be used to replace x rays, or in this case periodontal proving, and almost entirely because of the slow moving insurance industry. (I even asked how much I could pay cash to replace x rays, because fuck radiation, the answer was we have to x ray you)
Why are you bothered by the X-ray? From a radiation exposure standpoint it's not very significant compared to the exposure we get naturally.
One is background radiation we co-evolved along with and the other is targeted toward my brain in an instant.
But even if you're comparing mSv to mSv like it's all the same, I'd rather take 33 hours of flight time per year.
There is also a problem in dentistry with chasing ghosts that only exist in imaging and doing unnecessary work.
Radiation is radiation. We didn't evolve to perfectly handle the exact amount of radiation we'd receive naturally, nor do we struggle with any deviation from that. (Of course, not much XRay makes it down to sea level, but still)
XRay is pretty finessed at this point. It's an incredibly brief burst with as little power to it as feasible. It's not like ye olden days where people just blasted themselves with radiation not realizing the danger. The knowledge and tech is really sophisticated these days - it's as minimal as possible.
And if you don't get any XRays done, will you then decide to do more flying? Do you really budget your radiation exposure that closely? I'd be way more worried about things like nearby coal plants - both in terms of radiation and other health effects. Or Radon in a basement. Or smoke from nearby wildfires. Almost anything else nearby is a bigger source of health risk than ocassional XRays.
If we're looking at an individuals health over their life, the increase in detection (or even just earlier detection) of all sorts of health issues using Xrays vastly increases average life expectancy compared to the tiny cost of the XRays themselves. It's not even close to the same order of magnitude.
I get that sometimes doctors or dentists do unnecessary imaging of all kinds, and that sucks. It's costly in terms of time and money. But I'd much rather that then the alternative.
It's..it's not a toothbrush
Very cool! Reminds me of the mass effect tooth brush! https://youtu.be/BFSMHkk42PA?si=US552qcOmSXM-UXi
In Finland there is a profession called dental hygienist, whom I visit once a year. They clean up my teeth with an ultrasound device since many years, removing tartar.
I would not call it exactly painless though.
That's called an ultrasonic scaler, which is quite different to the device in the article. A scaler is for removing tartar and stain while the device in the article is an ultrasound (like the device for viewing babies during pregnancy) which looks under your gums at your tooth roots and bones to see if you have any bone loss or gum disease.
You might not have the dentist or dental hygienist use the probe very often. When they do it's a rounded straight tip device, and they usually call out numbers to an assistant for how deep under the gumline the probe can reach. That's the procedure this device would replace. If nothing else it's an improvement because you don't need an assistant to record the numbers, and if someone has bad gum disease it might hurt them when you poke in there with a probe.
I went 14 years between dental visits, and the move to ultrasound cleaning was the biggest change I noticed. The cleaning had always been a bloody affair, scraping and scratching in a way that would leave me with a throbbing pain after my appointment was ove. The ultrasound cleaning was like science fiction.
In the US most visit that person twice a year. They have that ultrasound machine, but they only use it on people who don't visit that often - the machine just gets the build up do the point where manual tools can finish the job. If you brush/floss and visit regularly the manual tools are all they need.
In this was at least it looks like the US system is better. Of course there is no way nuance can be expressed in a short forum like this, but maybe you need to look at the Finland system to see if it is really good enough.
It is also in Germany that you go 2 times a year to the dentist.
Has anyone else found an ultrasonic scaler very loud while in use, and to cause tinnitus for a couple days after?
Please don't give yourself tinnitus. Always wear protection (for your ears).
For the patient with an ultrasonic scaler in their mouth, are you saying that that a significant percentage of harmful noise is coming in through the ear canal, so conventional ear protection would help?
[dead]