You did, but it's clear you didn't read all the way through.
The cavitation effect, as I explained earlier, does not exist as Philips claim it does. Studies have been done and posted in this thread in regard to it. Cavitation is the effect of fluid dynamics; being able to go in between teeth and clean. This does not happen. Philips shows this by often demo'ing their brush tip inside a glass of water. Saliva is inherently thicker than water and when combined with toothpaste, especially those containing SLS (which is 99.9% of the market), the fluid within the oral cavity becomes much thicker. No cavitation can occur. It would be like whipping up pancake batter into a fine foam; it won't work. Did you not read the quote from the study abstract I posted? It stated they found no proof that a Sonicare was capable of producing fluid dynamics in approximal surfaces to deep clean. And contrary to The Sweet Home or reviews of products, the plaque and gingivitis is monitored using special tools in these studies. Reviews do not. If a study states cavitation (fluid dynamics) doesn't work as the manufacturer touts, it does not work.
Straight from Wiki, the definition for approximal surfaces is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximal
What the sweet home lacks is a understanding of what fluid dynamics does and how there's no study to prove Sonicare's claims. The Colgate A1500 is a sonic brush, operates faster than a Sonicare, and was still beat by an oscillation-pulsating brush.
Except as stated, the stroke count for a sonic brush is half of the number stated. Left to right. Sonic brush stroke counts are just that, 1 stroke to one side counts as a stroke and is advertised as such. 2 strokes count as a full movement of the brush head. Oscillations are a complete turn to one side and a return to starting point. Furthermore, the oscillating figures are not true. They're mixing up oscillations and pulsations. Oscillations move around, pulsations move to head in all directions. In relative terms, this is what the sonic Colgate A1500 (operating at 32,500 strokes-per-minute) does, and an oscillating-pulsating brush bested the Colgate in a 12 week study. Providing a better job at cleaning. This has been proven in multiple studies. If a product that's performed better than the Sonicare (A1500() yet fails at an oscillating-pulsating brush, the results are clear.
In addition, in a seperate randomized trial using a sonic brush and a rotating-oscillating brush found that the rotating-oscillating brush performed better than a sonic brush during the 12 weeks, and resulted in a reduction of plaque, gingivitis an bleeding sites in individuals who were at the beginning, at risk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19711610
The Colgate A1500 (Sonic, 32,500 strokes-per-minute) performs better than a Sonicare due to its speed and ability to move its head up and down when it detects a change in surface, was bested by an oscillating-pulsating toothbrush.
http://www.dentalcare.pl/media/pl_PL/research_db/pdf/JCD24.2_Klukowska_et_al.pdf
Furthermore, a several year study on the efficacy of brushes by the Cochrane Group found that out of all the various types of brushes, including sonic ones operating at Sonicare's advertised speeds, that oscillating brushes performed the best at plaque removal and gingivitis.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002281.pub3/full
Not necessarily. You'd be hard pressed to find a dentist who'll recommend water flossing over regular flossing. Waterpiks may remove chunks of food, often not easily removed by flossing, but they're not capable of cleaning the entirety of a tooth's surface. The pressure exerted from the tip is not capable of stripping away all plaque. It is, however, capable of removing bits of food you missed while brushing and flossing. Food that may rot and increase chances of gingivitus, gum bleed (which is a result of the aforementioned), possible bad breath and a higher cavity risk, especially if a diet is rich in carbohydrates compared to fats and protein.
It is however recommended to brush, flush and use a Waterpik in conjunction, but it won't replace regular flossing. Furthermore, those with tight contacts won't benefit from a Waterpik. There's less room for food and plaque to settle. Waterpiks are great for people who've got space between their teeth or between the necks of their teeth; the free area between teeth where the gum line begins in some people.
Waterpiks would be more useful for people with noticeable gaps in their teeth, as they're at far higher risk for gingivitis and periodontal pockets.
[doublepost=1490056269][/doublepost]
This study compared the Sonicare's results to nothing except itself.
Here's a test of similar toothbrushes. Sonicare FlexCare (which is a fantastic brush and one I'd use if I went back. Good price point to features ratio!) and an Oral B Triumph 9100 AKA Oral B Pro 5000.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...toothbrush/links/0deec5240971860333000000.pdf
The study compared both alongside with the participants own toothbrushes. They were required to abstain from flossing, irrigating and brushing for 24 hours prior to the study and each interval. This allows plaque to settle in quite thickly. 2 minutes of total brushing time were given. The study was repeated for three additional visits, allowing 2-5 days between visits, allowing the participants to resume their normal dental hygiene care. All subjects were again asked to abstain from their normal brushing, flossing and irrigating methods for 24 hours prior to each visit, so that plaque and bacteria would have settled thickly. By that, they wanted plaque to have encompassed the entirety of each tooth's surface.
Which, if you've ever gone camping and or forgotten to brush during a busy day, is very disgusting. At that point, you can see your teeth caked in plaque. Makes me heave just thinking about it. You're free to post your opinion on what you feel is best for yourself, but it doesn't refute any medical study done on sonic vs. oscillating and how sonic is bested nearly every time. There are 2-3 studies done in the 1990s and one in the early 2000s where a sonic brush did best an oscillating brush, however, when pressed about it, Phillips admitted to having funded the study and providing the participants.
As for Waterpiks, they're good for some people. I'm sure using a fancy polytetrafluoroethylene floss in its entirety would perform better than regular wax and unwaxed flosses, and those merely coated in teflon. Waterpiks have been around for a while and they're only now gaining more traction. I'll wait a few years before investing in one, because my current dental habits have been fine. Though they are something I'd look into when my children are a bit older and I can monitor their brushing without having to stand there or do it myself as we do now. Also, less risk of your child thinking they're funny and biting daddy or mommy's finger.
I do recall my dentist stating that if I ever did get one for myself, I could mix in some mouth rinse with it. Do you do this
@Huntn? My favorite rinses are Act or Listerine Total.
