[HN Gopher] Ultrasound toothbrush promises painless checks for h...
___________________________________________________________________
Ultrasound toothbrush promises painless checks for hidden gum
problems
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 82 points
Date : 2025-06-26 19:20 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| wjnc wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| 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
| throawayonthe wrote:
| toothpaste is usually self-administered haha
| amelius wrote:
| This could be an innovation: toothbrush with built-in
| toothpaste dispenser.
| Someone wrote:
| Already a product, typically/always marketed as a travel
| toothbrush.
| meindnoch wrote:
| From 2011: https://techcrunch.com/2011/03/22/actually-a-
| good-idea-tooth...
| amelius wrote:
| Nice find. However, I'm using an electric toothbrush. And
| the dispensing could be more automatic.
| wjnc wrote:
| First introduced in 1914! Suppressing a current practice is
| way harder than suppressing an innovation via buy-and-die.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| True.
| yanko wrote:
| Fluoride as ingredient is questionable for human heath
| despite of what the marketing spread
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| Do you have any reputable evidence that fluorinated
| toothpaste is harmful (assuming normal usage)?
| m101 wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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."
| MyOutfitIsVague wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 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."
| elcritch wrote:
| 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.
| Retric wrote:
| > 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > 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.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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.
| breezeTrowel wrote:
| 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).
| ErrorNoBrain wrote:
| this is just a product that is easier to use?
|
| i dont see why it couldnt reach the market
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| Can you point to the research?
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Reading comprehension? "I think..."
| nartho wrote:
| 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
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| the quack geese told so, yeah
| jampekka wrote:
| My favorite conspiracy theory stuff are the multiple unused
| caries vaccine patents by the dental care industry.
| foolswisdom wrote:
| Do you mind picking to some of these? I did a quick Google
| patents search but didn't find anything.
| jampekka wrote:
| 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!
| eru wrote:
| 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?
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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.)
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| 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'
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| 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.
| infecto wrote:
| 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.
| cyberax wrote:
| > 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.
| Clamchop wrote:
| 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.
| infecto wrote:
| 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.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| 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.
| infecto wrote:
| 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.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| It's..it's not a toothbrush
| grego wrote:
| 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.
| leviathant wrote:
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| 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.
| inkcapmushroom wrote:
| 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.
| neilv wrote:
| Has anyone else found an ultrasonic scaler very loud while in
| use, and to cause tinnitus for a couple days after?
| eminemence wrote:
| Check this : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4252862/
| This is a flouride alternative and seems to help teeth recover
| faster.
| toephu2 wrote:
| 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.
| ericmcer wrote:
| 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.
| elif wrote:
| 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.
| vel0city wrote:
| 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.
| elif wrote:
| 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)
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| 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.
| elif wrote:
| 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.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-30 23:01 UTC)