Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Solar-Powered Toothbrush Doesn't Require Toothpaste
- Thread starter bamaworks
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry, I missed that.
I've been checking this out. Apparently the original models needed the light to hit the metal rod in the neck of the tootbrush, so you had to brush the back teeth with your mouth wide open. So this new model has the extra solar receptor on the end as well as the neck rod, so you hold it like a pencil to keep the end exposed to the light..
A Canadian test on schoolchildren showed the half that used it got better plaque removal than the half where the rod was replaced with an imitation one:
I've been checking this out. Apparently the original models needed the light to hit the metal rod in the neck of the tootbrush, so you had to brush the back teeth with your mouth wide open. So this new model has the extra solar receptor on the end as well as the neck rod, so you hold it like a pencil to keep the end exposed to the light..
A Canadian test on schoolchildren showed the half that used it got better plaque removal than the half where the rod was replaced with an imitation one:
The toothbrush linked in this thread is the old model. You need to keep your mouth Wide open for it to work for the back of your mouth.
You don't "need" toothpaste with any tooth brush. That is why the toothpaste companies always say things like "30% more effective than brushing alone" which means without toothpaste. Brushing is far more important than toothpaste overall, though. You want to get the sugar and plaque off and the brush/friction is the most effective part of that. Toothpaste simply increases the friction and adds some chemicals shown to help fight plaque even further along with bad breath, etc.
As a dental student, this article ticked my curiosity on the main page side bar.
As noted by many, it is the mechanical action of the bristles that remove plaque and food debris. You do not need toothpaste to remove bacterial build up. Correct.
However, you cannot replace the need for fluoride. Toothpaste contains the optimum amount for the regular user at 1000 ppm (parts per million). What fluoride does is rearrange your tooth structure's chemical composition. I don't want to go into the full chemical equation, but, the new flouride structure makes your teeth more resistant to acids and chemical attacks while you are NOT brushing. This is the reason why we use toothpaste. Not for the minty feel or its instant bacterial removal capabilities. As such, a solar-toothpaste-be-gone-brush is utter nonsense.
Furthermore, the makers plan to "test"it on 120 teenage boys. This is too small a sample size to come to ANY sort of definitive conclusion.
As noted by many, it is the mechanical action of the bristles that remove plaque and food debris. You do not need toothpaste to remove bacterial build up. Correct.
However, you cannot replace the need for fluoride. Toothpaste contains the optimum amount for the regular user at 1000 ppm (parts per million). What fluoride does is rearrange your tooth structure's chemical composition. I don't want to go into the full chemical equation, but, the new flouride structure makes your teeth more resistant to acids and chemical attacks while you are NOT brushing. This is the reason why we use toothpaste. Not for the minty feel or its instant bacterial removal capabilities. As such, a solar-toothpaste-be-gone-brush is utter nonsense.
Furthermore, the makers plan to "test"it on 120 teenage boys. This is too small a sample size to come to ANY sort of definitive conclusion.
Fluoride has been in the tap water here in Australia for decades now (and other countries I assume), so the Colgate toothpastes from America 'with Fluoride protection' etc are really just a marketing gimmick. You only really need it if you drink the fancy bottled water.
Toothpaste with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) or some other alkaline on the other hand reduces the acidic conditions in the mouth which bacteria thrive on. But you can get the same effect anyway just by rinsing after brushing with a glass of water mixed with 1/2 teaspoon of baking soda.
Toothpaste with baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) or some other alkaline on the other hand reduces the acidic conditions in the mouth which bacteria thrive on. But you can get the same effect anyway just by rinsing after brushing with a glass of water mixed with 1/2 teaspoon of baking soda.
As a dental student, you should know that all public water in the USA has fluoride added to it already. There are also plenty of fluoride mouth washes/rinses available as well. Personally, I find much of the dental advice given to be unreliable. I brush on average ONCE a day (and far worse on flossing) and have not had a single cavity in my adult teeth in my entire life so far. I had one cavity in a child tooth about 28 years ago. Meanwhile, I know other people that brush 3x a day, floss at least once a day, use all kinds of anti-plaque and hygiene rinses and STILL get cavities on average of 1-2 a year. Genetics and eating habits probably account for more effect than every bit of dental advice combined.
1. Fluoridation levels in water has shown a dramatic decrease in the number of "cavities" in teeth. Note that the levels in drinking water is 1ppm. 1000 less than that of toothpaste. You still need the high doses.
2. Yes, and I can probably find you 1000 people who are vegetarians, non-smokers and have lung cancer. You really wonder why dentists make so much...
3. People who brush a lot etc. May not be doing it properly.
4. It is illegal to sell non-fluoride toothpaste in Australia.
5. Note that we are health professionals. I strive daily to give my patients genuine care advice. Our knowledge is based on thousands of randomized control trial research that show an unquestionable beneficial link between fluoride and dental health. We make nothing from advocating fluoride. Again, health professionals, not salesman. We are disgusted at some business practices of Colgate and the likes, but some things are recommended for a reason.
6. Genetics play a very small role in the average person. Some people may have developmental defects such as ameleogenesis imperfecta or other such malformations. These cases will have a significant impact on dental health and intervention such as fluoride will show little benefits. Furthermore, eating habits, as you stated, does greatly impact on oral health. But note that eating habits IS A LARGE part of "dental advice".
Yes, but fluoride in water is 1ppm. The science of all this takes 5 years to learn for a reason. I am unable to explain it within a forum setting. Just know that you need the high doses of fluoride to create a new tooth structure. The fluoride is not just slopped on top of the tooth surface. It is chemically incorporated into the phosphate microstructure at a molecular level.
We also recommend a teaspoon of salt and half a teaspoon of bicarb. soda. Because what you stated is correct. It buffers and neutralizes acids effectively and also kills bacteria-to a certain degree. But how do you expect to have salt and bicarb in your mouth for 12 hours a day?
Note that the bacterias do not "thrive" in acid. They are used to it yes. It is bearable. They thrive on carbohydrates such as sugar and it is the byproduct of their metabolism;the acid, that harms the tooth. Kind of like their "poo".
I can only speak from experience. According to the professionals I should probably be a dental nightmare. I brush 1/3 as often as I should. I rarely floss. I hardly ever use rinses. But I have made observations over the years and I didn't turn into a bad brusher overnight.
Here are some examples of bad advice propagated by the dental industry, in my humble opinion because it flies directly in the face of my own observations about plaque levels.
1> 'Soda is bad for your teeth.'
Sugar soda is bad for your teeth. Diet soda like sugar-free gum is INCREDIBLY *helpful* to your teeth in that it washes and/or dissolves away both sugar and plaque. No, it's not so great for the enamel of your teeth (it softens it temporarily; it doesn't destroy it), so you should not use it within a half hour to an hour of brushing. The more you brush, the more likely you are damaging the enamel in this regard and so here is a case where brushing is actually the cause of tooth damage under the circumstances, not the soda by itself. Thus, I conclude it is the sugar and plaque that are bad for your teeth. Anything that helps remove them is beneficial to preventing cavities. And that in general is the #1 observation I've made over the years. I don't eat hard candy. I don't chew sugar gum and a I very rarely drink sugary drinks. I hardly ever notice sugary plaque on my teeth to begin with and thus the lack of a need to brush it away. I believe diet soda and sugar-free gum plays a large part preventing its build-up, especially in my case since diet soda is the primary difference I notice in plaque being washed away after a lunch meal during the day. I can feel the difference. It's no longer gritty and nice and smooth again by dinner time.
2> Brush 3 times a day!
The problem with this advice is that it's not in any way tied to reality of the circumstances of a person's mouth. For example, if you have not eaten all day, what possible benefit is there to brushing your teeth? There is none. This 'advice' is based on an assumption of eating three meals of day and creating plaque buildup in each of those meals. Yet we also know that brushing too often, particularly when gums or teeth may be soft can actually do damage if done in excess or too hard (e.g. receding gum lines). I myself have receding gum lines on the opposite side of my mouth from my dominant hand caused during the days of brushing 3x a day. Brushing did not "help" me at all in that regard. Brushing less did not cause more bad breath (drinking lots of water or diet drinks washes away the bacteria that causes bad breath; toothpaste and rinses do little to keep it away for more than an hour or two as it will come right back to a mouth that just sits there. Drinking water often is the best cure here.
The best advice I could give someone is to brush when your teeth have obvious food or plaque build-up. You can feel sugar and plaque on your teeth. They feel gritty or pasty. You can see obvious food particles between your teeth to floss, etc. Knowing WHEN to brush and when not to is more beneficial than some abstract advice to brush 3x a day. Those people that drink soda or coffee or some other acidic drink for lunch and then immediately go to the bathroom to brush are doing real DAMAGE to their teeth, not helping them. You rarely see dentists even TALK about this sort of thing. They just tell you to brush and brush often. I'm sure it keeps their customers coming back year after year and 6 months after 6 months. I went 8 years between dentist visits this past cycle. Still no damage. All that teeth polishing is nonsense as well. It just keeps lining your pocket book. Worse yet, it's the low-paid assistants that have to do the dirty work while the "dentist" is paid obscene amounts of money to walk into the room for 5 minutes and say "good job".
And yet people wonder why health care costs are 2-3x what other countries pay and completely out of control in this country. it's because doctors are OVERPAID for simple visits where they do not do ANYTHING to warrant $200-300 an hour. Surgery or some other specialized skill is one thing, but a neurologist coming in to tell me he has NO IDEA what is causing pain in my neck after asking a few questions and testing for carpal tunnel syndrome deserves to charge $600 to the insurance companies for an hour visit?
Excuse me, but maybe pay should be based on performance and actual work done, not just costs of education that produces no better answer than a visit on Google in many cases.Yes, it can be quite damaging under various circumstances, but dentists do a poor job getting this information across and everything from receding gums to weak enamel are the result. It is not helpful for a dentist to tell me AFTER significant receded gums occur and cannot be fixed without surgery that I'm brushing too hard.
That proves dentists know what they're talking about.
I have no problem with fluoride, but this idea that you seem to imply that it solves everything is absurd. A lack of fluoride does not cause cavities. Acidic substances sitting on your teeth for hours at a time is what causes cavities. Fluroide may help strengthen your teeth and that's great, but that has more to do with prevention. In context to this thread, it would be better for a camper to brush his teeth without toothpaste than to not brush at all.
I think genetics play a HUGE role in the general health of an average individual. It is THE reason two people can eat the same diet and one has a heart attack and the other doesn't, one gets fat and the other doesn't. One gets cancer and the other doesn't. Genetics control EVERYTHING from aging to cholesterol levels to metabolism to tooth structure.
You see I don't just have this strange condition where my teeth seem to stay in great health with minimal intervention. My mother is 100% the opposite. She has had every dental problem known to man her entire life and you will NEVER find a person that is more faithful to brushing, flossing, dental rinses and 6 month visits to the dentist her entire life. Yet she's had a half dozen root canals, over 20 cavities, crowns, bridges, you name it. What the professionals are telling me is that I should be the one that is in that condition and yet here's a person that followed all their advice and look at the misery she's suffered. I have to admit that the professional advice has certainly helped made her dentist RICH so I guess it was good advice for them....
I see, the bacteria creates the acid environment. So the bacteria don't actually eat the tooth itself, just their byproduct erodes the tooth then?
I was thinking of fizzy drinks etc which have carbonic acid. So it's the acid from *both* the drinks and the bacteria which harms the tooth, with the sugar in the drinks feeding the bacteria. Makes fizzy drinks a double whammy sort of, I didn't know that.
I think there's a difference between using fluoride as a mouth rinse/wash and actually ingesting it into your system. The safe level is considered around 0.7-1.0 ppm in tapwater, as you say, which is only a fraction of what's in toothpaste because any levels higher than this such as studied in Thailand at 1.5ppm showed increased levels of discoloured teeth in children caused by dental fluorosis. Basically ingesting a small amount means more absorption into the tooth than by brushing with a large amount. To the point where I'd guess having it in the toothpaste makes little difference to the amount in the tooth if you already have 1ppm in your drinking water.
There are several non fluoride brands available. Here's one for example, even claims so on the pack and ingredients list:
@mangus:
It is anecdotal evidence that is the weakest form of evidence. Brilliant that this works for you. If the use of fluoride toothpaste stops today. There will he a huge surge in decay within the next 2-3 years, guaranteed.
Soda is synonymous with soft drink and soda. The Joe-blow understands this. I'm sure someone of your calibre can also differentiate what we mean. The level of vocabulary and science used in our interaction is decreased dramatically to convey ideas accurately. The main purpose is for a patient to understand.
With regards to improper brushing etc. Etc. And the dentist doing nothing.
1. Sure some dentist are horrible- change.
2. Our actual scope of work is moving towards much more complex surgical procedures. Only because so many people require advance treatment. Dentures, implants, orthodontics, endodontics (root canal) treatment etc. Are what we do. Why? There are dental hygienist and therapist now. They work on fillings, simple extractions and hygiene advice. Time is too valuable when so few of us make it out and so many on the waiting list.
3. I don't know the US teaching system but I have been giving every single onf of my patients at the hospital thorough brushing instructions, diet adjustments, flossing, suggestions of mouth rinses. You can't image how in depth we go. We measure each tooth's pocket at 6 location. We then reassess at a later date to compare.
4. If you get recession from brushing then you have gone a long time without visiting a dentist. These thing usually happen over a period of many years. If you don't listen to the advice of "come back in 12months" or ignore the letter "its time for your next appointment"- then there's not much else we can do.
Fluoride is not the be-all and end-all. It is the most effective for its price range. Easily accessible. There are many other preventative measures that are just not practical.
QUALITY research can not find definitive conclusions linking genetics with dental health. Regarding fat vs non fat and eating the same, one person may absorb more than the other but the difference is negligible. These are based on research conclusions drawn on results that are weak. Similar to cancer and non cancer. It is probably 99% exposure to radiation and consumption of carciogentic food and 1% predisposition. Note that there are a limited number of "cancer genes". A stronger genetic link with cancer does not relate to a strong link between genetics and oral health.
@a
Correct. Double whammy from acidic soft drinks. A rinse of water right after soft drinks or any meal will decrease exposure time and wash out the sticky residual.
Water in drinking taps are no higher because health agencies understand the limit. That is why we still need the high doses found in toothpaste.
Be careful of non-peer reviewed studies. Trust jada Ada etc. Not thailand research. I can publish a paper in the Burmese dental research whatever and say that playing tennis prevents tooth decay. Why? Because I play tennis and I don't have tooth decay. I can publish that anywhere and reference my published article in Burma. There is an overwhelming number of trash articles. We spend ten weeks learning about how to find and trust true reliable research.
Not sure where they sell that particular brand of toothpaste. The printing seems old and could be an image archive. All toothpaste at my local supermarkets contain fluoride. You can market tooth substances without fluoride but you are not allowed to market it as "toothpaste".
It is anecdotal evidence that is the weakest form of evidence. Brilliant that this works for you. If the use of fluoride toothpaste stops today. There will he a huge surge in decay within the next 2-3 years, guaranteed.
Soda is synonymous with soft drink and soda. The Joe-blow understands this. I'm sure someone of your calibre can also differentiate what we mean. The level of vocabulary and science used in our interaction is decreased dramatically to convey ideas accurately. The main purpose is for a patient to understand.
With regards to improper brushing etc. Etc. And the dentist doing nothing.
1. Sure some dentist are horrible- change.
2. Our actual scope of work is moving towards much more complex surgical procedures. Only because so many people require advance treatment. Dentures, implants, orthodontics, endodontics (root canal) treatment etc. Are what we do. Why? There are dental hygienist and therapist now. They work on fillings, simple extractions and hygiene advice. Time is too valuable when so few of us make it out and so many on the waiting list.
3. I don't know the US teaching system but I have been giving every single onf of my patients at the hospital thorough brushing instructions, diet adjustments, flossing, suggestions of mouth rinses. You can't image how in depth we go. We measure each tooth's pocket at 6 location. We then reassess at a later date to compare.
4. If you get recession from brushing then you have gone a long time without visiting a dentist. These thing usually happen over a period of many years. If you don't listen to the advice of "come back in 12months" or ignore the letter "its time for your next appointment"- then there's not much else we can do.
Fluoride is not the be-all and end-all. It is the most effective for its price range. Easily accessible. There are many other preventative measures that are just not practical.
QUALITY research can not find definitive conclusions linking genetics with dental health. Regarding fat vs non fat and eating the same, one person may absorb more than the other but the difference is negligible. These are based on research conclusions drawn on results that are weak. Similar to cancer and non cancer. It is probably 99% exposure to radiation and consumption of carciogentic food and 1% predisposition. Note that there are a limited number of "cancer genes". A stronger genetic link with cancer does not relate to a strong link between genetics and oral health.
@a
Correct. Double whammy from acidic soft drinks. A rinse of water right after soft drinks or any meal will decrease exposure time and wash out the sticky residual.
Water in drinking taps are no higher because health agencies understand the limit. That is why we still need the high doses found in toothpaste.
Be careful of non-peer reviewed studies. Trust jada Ada etc. Not thailand research. I can publish a paper in the Burmese dental research whatever and say that playing tennis prevents tooth decay. Why? Because I play tennis and I don't have tooth decay. I can publish that anywhere and reference my published article in Burma. There is an overwhelming number of trash articles. We spend ten weeks learning about how to find and trust true reliable research.
Not sure where they sell that particular brand of toothpaste. The printing seems old and could be an image archive. All toothpaste at my local supermarkets contain fluoride. You can market tooth substances without fluoride but you are not allowed to market it as "toothpaste".
I don't call observations with opposite behavioral patterns producing opposite than expected results "anecdotal" personally. I have not heard a good explanation yet why my mother has so many dental problems despite one of the most vigorous dental hygiene programs I've ever seen. Quite frankly, I have not seen any studies to explain why some people have so many more cavities than other people. I've always assumed that like cholesterol and general risk for heart problems it is probably genetic.
On the latter I can provide yet more "anecdotal" evidence. My eating habits are also not good. I eat a lot of red meat, tons of high fat dairy products (namely lots of sharp cheddar) and I eat very few vegetables, quite a few desserts and I'm overweight. And yet my cholesterol risk assessement based on my last two cholesterol tests was exactly 2 points from being off the bottom of the chart. I'm in my mid-30s. The doctor himself was SHOCKED. He asked me what I had been eating the first time and I told him fast-food (which was true for the previous 6-months as I was in the middle of a move, working overtime and had little time for anything else). The 6 months before that I was on the Atkins diet and ate almost nothing but pounds of bacon, beef, chicken, 3 dozen eggs a week and cheese by the pound (which was why I was having the cholesterol test done because I was worried the effect that diet had on my system). It was not that my bad cholesterol was obscenely low, but rather my good cholesterol levels were extremely high.
The kicker is that I just read about a study that finally actually looked at low-carb diets and they discovered that contrary to what one would guess, it actually lowers or maintains bad cholesterol and causes the good cholesterol to skyrocket, relatively speaking. So what I had assumed to be a good genetic break may actually have been the result of of the low-carb diet 8 months earlier. Similarly, the last cholesterol check nearly 2 years later showed a very similar pattern or either the effect lasts a LONG time or it is genetic. Regardless, the advice normally given by health professionals about protecting your hearth by eating less red meat, less dairy, etc. etc. has been shown in my case to be 100% pointless. I lose more weight and feel better eating low-carb than any low-calorie or low-fat diet I've ever tried and my cholesterol levels have never gone bad regardless.
So dismiss anything you want, but given the observations I've seen regarding other people who "follow the rules" versus some that don't, I'm seeing a lot more patterns of genetic predisposition than anything else.
I'm saying one should distinguish between soda and diet soda. Sugar soda is bad for you in almost every way imaginable. Diet soda may or may not be good for your (studies are still out on artificial sweeteners, IMO), but they are certainly WAY better for your teeth than the ones with sugar as they help to both dissolve (acids) and wash away (water) the very stuff that IS bad for your teeth. Similarly, a sugar gum chewed briefly probably deposits more sugar than anything else, but chewed for a long period of time, it starts cleaning up the teeth as the sugar runs out and non-sugar based gums clearly help the entire time. The acid in soda is bad for the hardness of your teeth, but the effect is only temporary since you are not constantly consuming it. One needs to watch WHEN they brush relative to drinking acidic drinks like coffee and soda, not avoid them altogether.
My receding gum lines occurred DURING the period of my life when I regularly went to the dentist every 6 months and brushed 2-3 times a day. The dentist would eventually comment on the gum loss, but did not make it in any way clear I needed to stop brushing so hard before it was too late. He made it quite clear that it was hard and/or side-to-side brushing that caused the damage. I stopped the side-to-side stuff a LONG LONG time ago and the problem persisted. I now use a power toothbrush instead and I cannot say the recession has improved as I see some evidence of a bit of recession on the other sides. Perhaps the soft manual brush was better and perhaps I should have brushed with the opposite hand to reduce pressure normally. Regardless, the dentists have not been able to adequately explain why I have worse than average recession issues despite near perfect teeth.
And despite not visiting a dentist until this past spring (the reasons I don't really wish to go into here), they still couldn't believe the condition of my teeth, ESPECIALLY given the lack of visits. But I knew after going to the dentist for over 25 years solid with no decay EVER that a professional polish was hardly going to matter much. Tartar buildup was the bigger problem, but I found you can buy your own tartar scraping tools to use at home. Being as proficient as a professional might be another matter, however.
Well like I said, you can believe anything you want to believe, but science has shown HUGE connections between cancer, cholesterol, etc. in genetic predisposition groups. Everything in the body is controlled by genetics and influenced by the surrounding environment. A person with a naturally high metabolism is less likely to become obsese than someone with a naturally low metabolism. That does not mean that he cannot be come fat and the low guy cannot stay thin, but the statistical probabilities are against it. I can be thin. I have to starve myself 24/7. I have a VERY low metabolism (well more like very efficient; my body temperature regulates high (I'm hot all the time and sweat very easily) and yet burns very few calories). My brother had a very high metabolism and could literally eat anything he wanted until his mid-30s when it suddenly slowed and he blew up like a balloon, having developed bad habits when it was high.
Studies that don't target differences but use random control groups probably aren't going to find huge differences. They should be targeting existing differences and finding out why they are different, not why random samples produce average results. Find the people that have low cholesterol, for example and then try and find out WHY they have it (not so hard to examine/compare diets and then compare genetics, etc.). The problem is these studies are expensive and most of studies done are often for research to promote new drugs, etc. and so they often have a bias all their own.
Maybe there is something my mother is doing to make her teeth fail, but I don't see it. She doesn't eat hard candy or chew sugar gum or drink sugar pop. She flosses 2-3x a day and brushes at least as often and yet she's had horrible teeth her entire life. I started out doing all those things, but got lazy over the years and discovered over time it didn't matter whether I did them religiously or not. Time after time after time I got rave reviews from my dentist telling me how great my teeth were. Maybe I was "lucky" but I don't really believe in luck. I figure there are more forces at work here. Maybe it's something really strange like high saliva levels flushing away sugar, etc. (I sweat easily regardless of my weight levels, for example and that has been shown to be on one side of my family so it must be genetic) but that's controlled by genetics too.
A lot of what you are saying now makes sense. Just be very careful of anecdotal evidence. Sure the scientific community can't explain everything. The first kind of research we attempt to link up is genetics. So rest assured that has be thoroughly stripped and searched with no conclusive results.
THe MAJORITY of research are trash. It takes one to learn an intensive research course in order to weedle out the quacks.
I have MANY patients, like you, who brush once a day with no cavities. Lucky them. But the evidence of non-fluoride use and infrequent brushing shows a staggering correlation to dental decay. We're here to help, not harm. The state of those teeth whom don't use toothpaste or brush twice a daily, are atrocious.
Maybe you need to change dentists. Or seek more appropriate care with a dental hygienist.
I have a feeling you are slightly confused between genetics and "disease". Let me explain why genetics have a very low influence on a person.
Say gene A "gives a 50%" higher risk of getting cancer. This generally means that the gene gives you a higher risk of contracting a disease that may develop into cancer. Note then, only 0.01% of people get that disease which then only 20% progress to cancer. This means that by having that gene there is a 150% x 0.01% x 20% to get that cancer. So only 0.003% of people with that gene to develop cancer. This is what trash research do. Trhey manipulate 0.003% to say genetics increAses the risk by 50%. 75% of the population will have a knee jerk reaction when reading this in a newspaper targeted at the everyday-man. Think now. 1,000 people without the gene, 3 persons will get that cancer. 1,000 people with that gene 4.5 persons will get that cancer. Do you now think that the link is genetics or chance?flip a coin 500 times, you'll get 260 heads vs 240 tails can you conclude that wearing a red top whilst flipping coins gives a higher chance of getting heads? My point is that even if you DO believe this, the affect is still negligible.
Don't get fooled by the overload of everything-is-controlled by genetics. Many researchers do this for funding-they need absurd results to get more funding to research about this "new and possibly devastating discovery related to the DEADLY disease that affects humans".
Life habits and chance plays 1,000 a bigger role than genetics.
Is is not to say that gross genetic mutations do not exist. But for the purpose of this topic regarding genetics-and-oral health, this is sufficient.
Please excuse some typos, I am using the iPad and may not be privy to the auto-corrections made whilst typing.
P.S diet soda vs sugar soda show a extremely small difference between dental decay. They harm virtually equally. Diet soda with regards to health I.e. Fat weight, does show a difference vs sugar soda.
THe MAJORITY of research are trash. It takes one to learn an intensive research course in order to weedle out the quacks.
I have MANY patients, like you, who brush once a day with no cavities. Lucky them. But the evidence of non-fluoride use and infrequent brushing shows a staggering correlation to dental decay. We're here to help, not harm. The state of those teeth whom don't use toothpaste or brush twice a daily, are atrocious.
Maybe you need to change dentists. Or seek more appropriate care with a dental hygienist.
I have a feeling you are slightly confused between genetics and "disease". Let me explain why genetics have a very low influence on a person.
Say gene A "gives a 50%" higher risk of getting cancer. This generally means that the gene gives you a higher risk of contracting a disease that may develop into cancer. Note then, only 0.01% of people get that disease which then only 20% progress to cancer. This means that by having that gene there is a 150% x 0.01% x 20% to get that cancer. So only 0.003% of people with that gene to develop cancer. This is what trash research do. Trhey manipulate 0.003% to say genetics increAses the risk by 50%. 75% of the population will have a knee jerk reaction when reading this in a newspaper targeted at the everyday-man. Think now. 1,000 people without the gene, 3 persons will get that cancer. 1,000 people with that gene 4.5 persons will get that cancer. Do you now think that the link is genetics or chance?flip a coin 500 times, you'll get 260 heads vs 240 tails can you conclude that wearing a red top whilst flipping coins gives a higher chance of getting heads? My point is that even if you DO believe this, the affect is still negligible.
Don't get fooled by the overload of everything-is-controlled by genetics. Many researchers do this for funding-they need absurd results to get more funding to research about this "new and possibly devastating discovery related to the DEADLY disease that affects humans".
Life habits and chance plays 1,000 a bigger role than genetics.
Is is not to say that gross genetic mutations do not exist. But for the purpose of this topic regarding genetics-and-oral health, this is sufficient.
Please excuse some typos, I am using the iPad and may not be privy to the auto-corrections made whilst typing.
P.S diet soda vs sugar soda show a extremely small difference between dental decay. They harm virtually equally. Diet soda with regards to health I.e. Fat weight, does show a difference vs sugar soda.
Um, I think you need to learn what scientific method is and what the whole point of research is. If GeneA leads to a 200% higher rate of cancer, I'd want to know if I had it. You giving one example with a low statistic doesn't change other studies that have a much higher rate. Besides, many diseases ARE genetic in origin. You don't get a person with Down Syndrome without a bad gene, for example. And I don't get naturally low cholesterol and another person doesn't get a naturally high metabolism by accident. There's a gene controlling that behavior. If we could control the gene set, I could flip a couple of genes to have a higher resting metabolism. That's not environment. It's genetics. How much I eat is environment.
That's hard to believe that something that essentially coats your teeth in sugar wouldn't have any more affect on tooth decay than what is essentially just carbonated water with a little bit of acid (well colas have acid; some sodas have very little acid). Diet soda has nothing to cause tooth decay other than acid and it doesn't stick around. At most it temporarily softens the enamel as mentioned earlier. SUGAR, however promotes tooth decay. Or are you going to tell me that hard candy has no affect on tooth decay either?