First 'tooth regrowth medicine' to be tested in Japan from Sept. 2024(mainichi.jp)
mainichi.jp
First 'tooth regrowth medicine' to be tested in Japan from Sept. 2024
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240503/p2a/00m/0sc/012000c
92 comments
You can buy several varieties of hydroxyapatite toothpaste on Amazon now. Before 2021 or so it was a bit of a pain - a couple Japanese and Singaporean brands with spotty availability.
Edit: as alluded to by sibling comment, there are confusing claims about the exact size and structure of the hydroxyapatite ingredient used. Several brands claim that their particles (?) are smaller than those used by Novamin or by other brands and therefore more effective.
The concept of remineralizing the surface of existing teeth is totally different than what this article is talking about, though.
Edit: as alluded to by sibling comment, there are confusing claims about the exact size and structure of the hydroxyapatite ingredient used. Several brands claim that their particles (?) are smaller than those used by Novamin or by other brands and therefore more effective.
The concept of remineralizing the surface of existing teeth is totally different than what this article is talking about, though.
our saliva already contains hydroxyapatite. What's the reasoning behind including it in a toothpaste? Saliva doesn't contain enough?
Our teeth enamel is in chemical interaction with our saliva. Lower pH favour the dissolution of the apatite (attacking the teeth), and higher pH favour its precipitation (growing enamel). So it’s true that the components are in our saliva as well, in itself it is not enough to make it grow.
These toothpastes change this by providing lots of the building blocks of apatite, saturating the saliva and promoting growth, but also by increasing the pH. It tends to decrease after a meal (or particularly after drinking sugary drinks, which tend to be awfully acidic), which is why it’s useful to have the toothpaste stabilising it.
These toothpastes change this by providing lots of the building blocks of apatite, saturating the saliva and promoting growth, but also by increasing the pH. It tends to decrease after a meal (or particularly after drinking sugary drinks, which tend to be awfully acidic), which is why it’s useful to have the toothpaste stabilising it.
Not with a modern lifestyle, no.
I've heard and read the same. I noticed this review of studies which seems to indicate benefits are not as strongly present as word-of-mouth reputation may indicate.
I suppose if it was an unambiguously beneficial compound, American toothpaste manufacturers would have been all over it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068624/
I suppose if it was an unambiguously beneficial compound, American toothpaste manufacturers would have been all over it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068624/
“American toothpaste manufacturers would have been all over it.”
What’s the incentive to disrupt the status quo unless you can capitalize more than your competitors? And incurring the enmity of the secret society of dentists and hygienists. Hehe.
Dentistry makes me crazy.
What’s the incentive to disrupt the status quo unless you can capitalize more than your competitors? And incurring the enmity of the secret society of dentists and hygienists. Hehe.
Dentistry makes me crazy.
Companies have teams upon teams of people desperate to justify their continued employment despite existing products being more than adequate. See: constant UX redesigns, 3-blade razors.
> “Companies have teams upon teams of people desperate to justify their continued employment…”
True—even when they don’t have something new they work to convince consumers (I’m thinking B2B) believe a product will do things it does not do.
True—even when they don’t have something new they work to convince consumers (I’m thinking B2B) believe a product will do things it does not do.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068624/
says it doesnt but also says better trials should be done in future
says it doesnt but also says better trials should be done in future
I've been buying Sonsodyne with Novamin for that exact reason (read on the reddit too) however, after 1 year of use, I see exactly 0 results. I don't think it does anything when used as a part of toothpaste, looks like it needs completely different delivery method.
I used to use Novamin containing toothpastes, but now there is a new compound which is much better, biomin:
https://www.biomin.co.uk/
https://www.biomin.co.uk/
Citation for that claim?
At least in the US, the argument is that when pressed by the FDA, Novamin was pulled from the market by GlaxoSmithKline instead of doing the required trials whereas Biomin went through and passed all the trials.
And since it's actually gone through the process, there are studies out that compare it to other hydroxyapatite solutions. I've linked one study which compares their two variants against Apacare and karex (two HAp toothepaste which have studies of their own that compare against the others before them like Novamin).
The study shows that Biomin C (the one without Fluoride) is comparable to karex (the one without fluoride) and other similar HAp toothepastes. HAp + fluoride (like novamin) marginally outperforms it. So if you use fluoride (such as by also using a fluoride toothpaste or living in an area with fluoride in the water) the difference should be negligible. Importantly though for people in the US, Biomin C is available here.
Biomin F is wrapping up the FDA approval process however it does seem to generally outperform all other formulations since the fluoride is actually part of the bioglass itself rather than simply an additional active ingredient in the suspension.
TLDR: Biomin C is within marginal differences to comparable no-fluoride HAp toothpastes on the market but Biomin F outperforms other HAp toothpastes that contain fluoride since the fluoride in Biomin F is delivered via the same mechanism that handles remineralisation of the other elements. And to my knowledge Biomin F is the only HAp toothpaste to do that so far. Also Biomin C is the only HAp toothpaste available in the US (with Biomin F apparently soon to follow).
https://doi.org/10.21608/adjg.2021.66174.1346
And since it's actually gone through the process, there are studies out that compare it to other hydroxyapatite solutions. I've linked one study which compares their two variants against Apacare and karex (two HAp toothepaste which have studies of their own that compare against the others before them like Novamin).
The study shows that Biomin C (the one without Fluoride) is comparable to karex (the one without fluoride) and other similar HAp toothepastes. HAp + fluoride (like novamin) marginally outperforms it. So if you use fluoride (such as by also using a fluoride toothpaste or living in an area with fluoride in the water) the difference should be negligible. Importantly though for people in the US, Biomin C is available here.
Biomin F is wrapping up the FDA approval process however it does seem to generally outperform all other formulations since the fluoride is actually part of the bioglass itself rather than simply an additional active ingredient in the suspension.
TLDR: Biomin C is within marginal differences to comparable no-fluoride HAp toothpastes on the market but Biomin F outperforms other HAp toothpastes that contain fluoride since the fluoride in Biomin F is delivered via the same mechanism that handles remineralisation of the other elements. And to my knowledge Biomin F is the only HAp toothpaste to do that so far. Also Biomin C is the only HAp toothpaste available in the US (with Biomin F apparently soon to follow).
https://doi.org/10.21608/adjg.2021.66174.1346
You can easily look up some studies, but for me personally it has been the impact on sensitivity.
It's basically gone since I've been using it.
I'm a bit puzzled why one would hold a press conference for a trial that hasn't happened yet - especially as this seems to be a phase 1 trial to test safety in humans.
The development of medical interventions typically goes through a number of stages.
The earliest stage is called the pre-clinical phase, where a candidate intervention is tested outside of humans, either in vitro or in animals. The images of the mouse and ferret teeth suggest this has been done.
Phase 1 is when the intervention is first tested in humans, typically in small groups of usually dozens of participants. The aim here is not to evaluate efficacy - phase 1 studies are often too small for that - but to assess tolerability and safety, and to find the optimal dosing with respect to side effects.
If an intervention appears safe in certain doses, it can then be evaluated for initial efficacy and continued safety in a phase 2 trial, which is larger (usually hundreds of participants). Think of it as a kind of pilot trial to see if the intervention has the desired beneficial effects without serious negative side effects, and to identify the dose with the best benefit/risk ratio. About half of the studies get past this stage.
Those that do can enter phase 3, which is the full efficacy and safety assessment of the intervention. Again, about half of the phase 3 trials eventually make it to market. Of course, the intervention first needs to go to the health authorities for regulatory approval before it can be offered on the market.
For an interesting study on costs during these phases, see e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32125404/
I'm obviously very excited about medical progress but if we had a press conference for every planned phase 1 trial we wouldn't be doing much else ;-)
The development of medical interventions typically goes through a number of stages.
The earliest stage is called the pre-clinical phase, where a candidate intervention is tested outside of humans, either in vitro or in animals. The images of the mouse and ferret teeth suggest this has been done.
Phase 1 is when the intervention is first tested in humans, typically in small groups of usually dozens of participants. The aim here is not to evaluate efficacy - phase 1 studies are often too small for that - but to assess tolerability and safety, and to find the optimal dosing with respect to side effects.
If an intervention appears safe in certain doses, it can then be evaluated for initial efficacy and continued safety in a phase 2 trial, which is larger (usually hundreds of participants). Think of it as a kind of pilot trial to see if the intervention has the desired beneficial effects without serious negative side effects, and to identify the dose with the best benefit/risk ratio. About half of the studies get past this stage.
Those that do can enter phase 3, which is the full efficacy and safety assessment of the intervention. Again, about half of the phase 3 trials eventually make it to market. Of course, the intervention first needs to go to the health authorities for regulatory approval before it can be offered on the market.
For an interesting study on costs during these phases, see e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32125404/
I'm obviously very excited about medical progress but if we had a press conference for every planned phase 1 trial we wouldn't be doing much else ;-)
> I'm a bit puzzled why one would hold a press conference for a trial that hasn't happened yet
This is something Japan loves to do. We joked during covid that they kept making announcements that they were planning to have a meetings to prepare announcements.
This is something Japan loves to do. We joked during covid that they kept making announcements that they were planning to have a meetings to prepare announcements.
Ironic there is so much red tape yet having original ideas are still frowned upon.
I you live long enough in Japan this is just concept as viewed by an outsider. Their dollar store is full of almost useless ideas put out in the market. Even the blue LED was discovered because a company owner invested millions and his scientist was not afraid to try new ideas. You will find all sorts of camera styles on their electronic stores. Even their appliances have all kind of categories and you wont see the west even trying to put it out in the market.
Meh. My experience working there wasn't so much that original ideas were frowned upon as much as thinking/saying you're better than your group-mates for having them was. It's a subtle difference, but I saw plenty of novel ideas take root, but only after an excruciatingly long period of socialization. In the states and in most of Europe, it seems if you have a good idea, you just blurt it out and people say "hunh. that sounds like a good idea. let's do that thing." But Japan and Sweden required A LOT of planning and hemming and hawing about whether the new idea was a good thing to do.
What you’re referring to is called nemawashi in Japan , literally “digging around the roots of a tree”. It’s formal business etiquette understood by all office workers. One shouldn’t blurt out ideas to an unprepared group, but spread the idea around before especially to the superior. If they reject the idea they don’t have to embarrass you in front of others, or lose face in public for being taken by surprise.
In the states and in most of Europe, it seems if you have a good idea, you just blurt it out and people say "hunh. that sounds like a good idea. let's do that thing."
It might vary from company to company, but I find the response is more “you should do that thing”. People are too busy with their own ideas to waste time building yours.
It might vary from company to company, but I find the response is more “you should do that thing”. People are too busy with their own ideas to waste time building yours.
Biotech companies go public incredibly early compared to tech not sure if these guys have yet but it would have a huge impact on their stock price and likely hold of getting into conversation with a major pharma Co that can pay for the later trials
This is the correct answer. Biotech VCs invest very large amounts based on early scientific results and the vast majority of biotech companies go public before they even have revenue because they can't legally charge a penny until regulatory approval. This is how the pharmaceutical has been offloading their increasing R&D expenses onto the public since the patent cliff picked up speed in the 1990s.
A major PR push exposes them to as many investors as fast as possible both at the VC and public level. When the science is particularly solid, this process can happen fast and involve ridiculous amounts of money (i.e Sofosbuvir discovered 2007, first tested 2010, bought for $11 billion in 2011, approved 2013).
A major PR push exposes them to as many investors as fast as possible both at the VC and public level. When the science is particularly solid, this process can happen fast and involve ridiculous amounts of money (i.e Sofosbuvir discovered 2007, first tested 2010, bought for $11 billion in 2011, approved 2013).
I assumed it’s to drive up interest among potential investors.
This is something life changing for some of us. I grew up in an area where water has a lot of fluoride and we didn’t get to know until I was 16.. side effect is I have very brittle teeth.. I’ve shattered a couple due to bad rice (had a small stone in it), lentils, sliver of bone … Now, the kicker is Colgate et al have been marketing fluoride toothpaste to the same region to people facing fluorosis knowingly - profits above all else. so if this treatment comes through, I’ll be lining up!
I thought the fluoride was supposed to be good for teeth, I guess too much has the opposite effect. TIL
You’re not supposed to swallow it. It builds up in the body (in teeth mainly?)
To be clear: drinking water sources often contain flouride and swallowing water is generally not optional. The source can be natural or artificial, but the outcome will be the same if you get an unusually excessive amount during developmental years. As with all nutrients, too much will inevitably become bad for you (thankfully, in the case of flouride, the therapeutic index is quite generous)
With all of this being said, once you're an adult there's no longer any particularly viable pathways from the bloodstream to your outer teeth, so flouride in the body becomes mostly disconnected from flouride in the teeth (and vice versa). Flouride's effects on the body are less well understood, albeit only because we struggle to measure such apparently small effects on a general population.
With all of this being said, once you're an adult there's no longer any particularly viable pathways from the bloodstream to your outer teeth, so flouride in the body becomes mostly disconnected from flouride in the teeth (and vice versa). Flouride's effects on the body are less well understood, albeit only because we struggle to measure such apparently small effects on a general population.
My mom was obsessed with flouride in water so I actually asked my dentist about it. According to an actual health professional it is quite good for the teeth and excessive amounts only affect the appearance not structure.
Today’s the day you find out “actual health professionals” can be wrong or no longer up to date.
That’s why second opinions on important things are vital.
That’s why second opinions on important things are vital.
I'll take the word of the health professional, thanks
Good luck. I have had my fair share of wrong diagnostics myself.
Turns out health professionals are themselves skeptics... (covid showed us already)
Well it's science and at some point, science claimed that earth was flat so...
Good luck again :D
(point is, don't trust blindly)
Turns out health professionals are themselves skeptics... (covid showed us already)
Well it's science and at some point, science claimed that earth was flat so...
Good luck again :D
(point is, don't trust blindly)
That actual health professional was wrong. It depends on the exposure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
I recommend reading that again, or better yet, ask your dentist to explain why you are wrong
> The severity of the condition is dependent on the dose, duration, and age of the individual during the exposure.
> Severe : 5 : All enamel surfaces are affected and hypoplasia is so marked that the general form of the tooth may be affected. The major diagnostic sign of this classification is discrete or confluent pitting. Brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-like appearance.
> Severe : 5 : All enamel surfaces are affected and hypoplasia is so marked that the general form of the tooth may be affected. The major diagnostic sign of this classification is discrete or confluent pitting. Brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-like appearance.
Fluoride catalyzes remineralization of dissolved calcium and phosphate atoms back to hydroxyapatite; this also happens without fluoride, but less efficiently. In addition fluorine ions can substitute the hydroxide ions in hydroxyapatite, forming fluorapatite which is more resistant against acid.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/fluoride/
Millions of people in England receive fluoridated water. This means fluoride has been added to bring it up to around 1mg of fluoride per litre of water, which is a level found to reduce tooth decay levels.
Now I know there is a running joke around the English having bad teeth. But I imagine if millions of people were having issues we’d know about it.
Millions of people in England receive fluoridated water. This means fluoride has been added to bring it up to around 1mg of fluoride per litre of water, which is a level found to reduce tooth decay levels.
Now I know there is a running joke around the English having bad teeth. But I imagine if millions of people were having issues we’d know about it.
Added fluoride is done at safe levels. But some natural water sources have TOO MuCH fluoride which is unsafe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity#Bones
I always thought we started fluoridation of water so the Soviets couldn't figure out how much uranium (and later plutonium) we were producing. UF6 is a bi-product of uranium enrichment and it's fairly straight-forward to estimate how much we're producing by taking water samples at the mouths of various rivers. But if everyone is brushing their teeth with fluoride, then it's a lot harder to accurately measure how much is due to enrichment.
This is very clearly a conspiracy theory, but water fluoridation is one of those topics that seems to attract them.
This is very clearly a conspiracy theory, but water fluoridation is one of those topics that seems to attract them.
Fluoride is good for your teeth. Not sure what you're talking about, but it's scientifically inaccurate. Also, fluorosis is a cosmetic issue, it doesn't weaken your teeth. And it happens when you're growing your permanent teeth when your parents forget to teach you to not swallow your toothpaste. It wouldn't affect you now.
If your water is over-fluorinated, you have far bigger problems that stem from your local government.
If your water is over-fluorinated, you have far bigger problems that stem from your local government.
You’re wrong on both counts. The geology of many areas cause excess fluoride in well water without any government intervention, which can then become worse when using fluorinated toothpaste. It’s rarely a significant issue in the US, but gets far in some countries.
“These sources include drinking water with fluoride, fluoride toothpaste—especially if swallowed by young children” Ie: swallowing makes it worse but the point of fluoride in toothpaste is to be absorbed, so some will get absolutely even in those who already have issues.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/dental_fluorosis/index....
“These sources include drinking water with fluoride, fluoride toothpaste—especially if swallowed by young children” Ie: swallowing makes it worse but the point of fluoride in toothpaste is to be absorbed, so some will get absolutely even in those who already have issues.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/dental_fluorosis/index....
Seems to be a cosmetic issue only?
Some studies have shown it (high fluoride, and possibly too low of fluoride too) affecting IQ.
It’s a shame if you mention anything about possible negative effects of fluoride you get lumped in with the crazies.
It’s a shame if you mention anything about possible negative effects of fluoride you get lumped in with the crazies.
Yeah rat poison can't harm humans regardless of form, concentration, age or literally any possible factor. Trust us with lives of your kids, we say so.
(just to be clear I am a rational science freak, but my kids have higher priority and we know scientists and corporations have messed up more than once, not going into 'just trust us' with literal poison just because it has good side effects on teeth)
(just to be clear I am a rational science freak, but my kids have higher priority and we know scientists and corporations have messed up more than once, not going into 'just trust us' with literal poison just because it has good side effects on teeth)
> cosmetic issue only?
Only at low levels: “Moderate and severe forms of dental fluorosis, which are far less common, cause more extensive enamel changes. In the rare, severe form, pits may form in the teeth.”
Only at low levels: “Moderate and severe forms of dental fluorosis, which are far less common, cause more extensive enamel changes. In the rare, severe form, pits may form in the teeth.”
> And it happens when you're growing your permanent teeth when your parents forget to teach you
He said it happened as he grew up. Wikipedia says almost half of Americans have at least mild fluorisis, there's no need to blame the parents when an environmental/governmental cause is so readily established...
> Also, fluorosis is a cosmetic issue
That's what I thought too but Wikipedia also disagrees on this count:
The pits, bands, and loss of areas of enamel seen in severe fluorosis are the result of damage to the severely hypomineralized, brittle and fragile enamel which occurs after they erupt into the mouth.
He said it happened as he grew up. Wikipedia says almost half of Americans have at least mild fluorisis, there's no need to blame the parents when an environmental/governmental cause is so readily established...
> Also, fluorosis is a cosmetic issue
That's what I thought too but Wikipedia also disagrees on this count:
The pits, bands, and loss of areas of enamel seen in severe fluorosis are the result of damage to the severely hypomineralized, brittle and fragile enamel which occurs after they erupt into the mouth.
Fluorosis is not a cosmetic issue - it can be severe enough that it impacts the strength of the skeleton.
Even if that was not the case, you'd need to prove that it's better than hydroxyapatite when applied topically, which (assuming effective) delivery will obviously not be the case.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3295994/
Even if that was not the case, you'd need to prove that it's better than hydroxyapatite when applied topically, which (assuming effective) delivery will obviously not be the case.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3295994/
Anybody who lives in a rural area with a well could have higher levels of natural occuring fluoride in their water too.
You could, though at least when I bought my house a well test was required.
Not everyone has such regulation. There’s a problem with fluoride toxicity in India for example.
This is for growing in teeth that never properly grew in the first place for genetic reasons. It's not a cure for your cavities. Don't get your hopes up!
The article states
"The team believes that in the future it may be possible to grow teeth not only in people with congenital conditions, but also in those who have lost teeth due to cavities or injuries."
"The team believes that in the future it may be possible to grow teeth not only in people with congenital conditions, but also in those who have lost teeth due to cavities or injuries."
I first read about scientists making progress on regrowing teeth about 20 years ago. At the time, I thought this would be a future I saw and crowns would not be something I’d have to deal with. 20 years later, I no longer expect this to be something I experience in my lifetime.
The parallels to cold fusion are hilarious! Maybe just to me
Believes... it may be possible
That isn't really strong confidence.
That isn't really strong confidence.
Oh Wow, I actually still have a baby tooth @ 50+ years old because an adult tooth never grew behind it. My dentist has been warning me that eventually I'll need to bridge/implant it but I wonder if I would be a candidate for this treatment. Depending on the cost too.
My brother is in a similar situation, though younger, and it's especially weird in our family because my dad grew a full extra tooth near the front for no apparent reason, and his brother regrew all four wisdom teeth after having them extracted, so you'd think my brother would err on the side of too many teeth, not too few!
(We're a bit screwy in general, though. My dad has an extra vertebra, besides the extra tooth, and I managed not to get enough vertebrae, but I have 1.5 extra ribs.)
(We're a bit screwy in general, though. My dad has an extra vertebra, besides the extra tooth, and I managed not to get enough vertebrae, but I have 1.5 extra ribs.)
[deleted]
surely if you can regrow an entire tooth that never existed.
You can make teeth heal?
Or rip it out and grow a new one?
It needs the tooth nucleation point to exist at the moment: it's where the truth starts growing from during development.
As a layman it seems like the natural follow-up is to figure out how to grow tooth buds from stem cells and implant them, which in theory would allow people to grow whole new sets of teeth.
"The team believes that in the future it may be possible to grow teeth not only in people with congenital conditions, but also in those who have lost teeth due to cavities or injuries."
Hope something develops in this front. I grew up drinking soda with bad teeth genetically. I also had a period when I was seriously ill where I was barely brushing. The teeth are swiss cheese and I wish there was something I could do other than rip them all out and look 20 years older. I'm only in my early 30s so it's really distressing. :(
There is a lot of money in the tooth illness industry.
However, none of my dentists ever told me to just quit all added sugar, which I did 'accidentally'. All of that expense and missing teeth was all for nothing, all I needed to do was homecook all my own food and not eat added sugar. Who knew it could be so easy.
Having excellent oral hygiene with gums grown back, no sensitive teeth or much need to brush teeth is an unusual and unexpected self-esteem superpower. I would not give it up just to eat cake or anything else contaminated with added sugar.
Off topic, I know, but, anyone wanting tooth regrowth, or with $5K root canal work and dental hygienist bills, just avoid all processed foods and all added sugar for a month. You don't have to ask permission from the doctor or the dentist to do this, but, if you do, then you might never need to see them ever again.
However, none of my dentists ever told me to just quit all added sugar, which I did 'accidentally'. All of that expense and missing teeth was all for nothing, all I needed to do was homecook all my own food and not eat added sugar. Who knew it could be so easy.
Having excellent oral hygiene with gums grown back, no sensitive teeth or much need to brush teeth is an unusual and unexpected self-esteem superpower. I would not give it up just to eat cake or anything else contaminated with added sugar.
Off topic, I know, but, anyone wanting tooth regrowth, or with $5K root canal work and dental hygienist bills, just avoid all processed foods and all added sugar for a month. You don't have to ask permission from the doctor or the dentist to do this, but, if you do, then you might never need to see them ever again.
My father doesn't eat sweets. He has a very healthy diet - whole grains, vegetables, etc. Never had a cavity nor gum disease.
Because of that he never went to the dentist to have a check up.
He ended up loosing all his teeth from hardened plaque below the gum line.
His teeth just fell off, one after another, because he never learned good dental hygiene.
I'm with you when it comes to advocating against added sugars and spreading the word about how surprisingly resilient teeth are when given a good environment... but I do think you've hurt your own argument by overstating the case.
First: Calculus forms within hours of eating just about any meal. Sugars make this much worse, but to a certain extent it is unavoidable. Regular appointments with a hygienist will improve your long-term dental health regardless of diet, though the necessary frequency can be decreased in many cases with a good diet.
Second: Please don't stop brushing your teeth, especially if you want fewer dentist appointments. It's one of the cheapest and safest investments you can possibly make in your body. Just because you can't feel the plaque doesn't mean that it's not there.
Third: Added sugars are just really, terribly bad for you in general. I'm speaking now to those that don't care much about their teeth: you can do so much for your long-term health by simply checking for this one thing on labels. I know it's an odd concept to think of added sugars as being so much worse than "natural" sugars when they're fundamentally the same molecules, but it's true -- the differences in solubility/bioavailability have a very outsized impact.
First: Calculus forms within hours of eating just about any meal. Sugars make this much worse, but to a certain extent it is unavoidable. Regular appointments with a hygienist will improve your long-term dental health regardless of diet, though the necessary frequency can be decreased in many cases with a good diet.
Second: Please don't stop brushing your teeth, especially if you want fewer dentist appointments. It's one of the cheapest and safest investments you can possibly make in your body. Just because you can't feel the plaque doesn't mean that it's not there.
Third: Added sugars are just really, terribly bad for you in general. I'm speaking now to those that don't care much about their teeth: you can do so much for your long-term health by simply checking for this one thing on labels. I know it's an odd concept to think of added sugars as being so much worse than "natural" sugars when they're fundamentally the same molecules, but it's true -- the differences in solubility/bioavailability have a very outsized impact.
How do you tell of something has added sugars or not? The nutritional facts all lump it under “carbohydrates, of which sugars” without making a distinction between added sugar and the sugar that comes with the ingredients.
Initially this is hard but then you soon realise that you are never buying processed food ever again and everything is a single ingredient food. There may be one or two exceptions and often tinned things have a preservative or an acidity regulator in there too.
What this means is that there is no puzzling over food labels. If you are buying carrots then they are just carrots.
Initially this seems a bit extreme as there seems to be nothing in the supermarket to buy. On my most recent trip I saw some of my former 'friends' including what was once my favourite frozen pizza. There was nothing toxic about it, once you have embraced home cooking, then nothing processed or ready made is satisfactory. In the case of the pizza, my home made pizza will be in a different league of taste, it might not be to everyone's liking but, for me, it will be like being on a drug high. I can't get that buzz from store bought food and it certainly does not list 'natural opiates released per bite' on the nutrition labels.
When you seriously get into buying the vegetables, there is always so much that you have not bought or cooked with before. These things have always been there and they are not weird, but, for some reason you have not decided to cook with them in new and exciting ways. Processed meals mean you don't have to.
Then you start mixing in herbs and all of the nutrition labels are left far, far behind. They have different meaning with processed food to real food made with single ingredient items, most of which are vegetables. Carbohydrates also shift from the cheap ones in processed food to being much better quality and best described as 'nutrient rich fibre'.
What this means is that there is no puzzling over food labels. If you are buying carrots then they are just carrots.
Initially this seems a bit extreme as there seems to be nothing in the supermarket to buy. On my most recent trip I saw some of my former 'friends' including what was once my favourite frozen pizza. There was nothing toxic about it, once you have embraced home cooking, then nothing processed or ready made is satisfactory. In the case of the pizza, my home made pizza will be in a different league of taste, it might not be to everyone's liking but, for me, it will be like being on a drug high. I can't get that buzz from store bought food and it certainly does not list 'natural opiates released per bite' on the nutrition labels.
When you seriously get into buying the vegetables, there is always so much that you have not bought or cooked with before. These things have always been there and they are not weird, but, for some reason you have not decided to cook with them in new and exciting ways. Processed meals mean you don't have to.
Then you start mixing in herbs and all of the nutrition labels are left far, far behind. They have different meaning with processed food to real food made with single ingredient items, most of which are vegetables. Carbohydrates also shift from the cheap ones in processed food to being much better quality and best described as 'nutrient rich fibre'.
The label was updated in 2016. Please refer to the official FDA guide to the updated nutrition facts label[1], item #4.
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/media/135197/download
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/media/135197/download
I take your points, including #2. The thing is that if brushing your teeth means a world of pain then you do it out of obligation and it is not a happy experience.
However, if your teeth are good because there is no sucrose that ever goes anywhere near them in 'added form', then it becomes a pleasure to give them a quick polish.
My point still stands though, there is a lot of money made from tooth related FUD and sugary food. I just wished a dentist had spilled the beans to me many decades ago that it really is simple to have excellent oral hygiene just be avoiding the added sugars, and, to a lesser extent, the processed food.
Nowadays my teeth always feel good. I used to eat things like biscuits and crisps (chips) for my teeth to not feel great the next day, even if I had thoroughly brushed my teeth the night before. By every metric I just find the situation very different, the gums have definitely 'grown back' and I am sure some tartar is now below the gumline.
If eating a diet that is essentially whole food, plant based with no added sugars or processed foods, then that means no preservatives. Many common preservatives kill bacteria, or specific bacteria such as 'anything but yeast'. This makes sense for shelf life but I am not sure it helps with the gastrointestinal tract, which includes the mouth. There are good bacteria and then there is the one that lives off sucrose to make plaque. If you are eating standard issue bakery products then you are killing off the bad guys whilst giving the yeast=like strains that live off sucrose a free pass.
Incidentally, after I banished sugar from my home, I was reading the label of the toothpaste one day whilst brushing my teeth. And you will never guess what? Sugar. The cheek of it, putting sugar in toothpaste. That is perpetuating a problem that was being set out to be solved.
Generally though, the no sugar under any circumstances rule has raised my baseline oral hygiene to the best that it has ever been. I cut coffee and dairy too, so it is not difficult or a challenge to put in the effort to get them really nice for when I am meeting someone. However, I no longer feel obligated to brush them twice a day lest they feel like they are falling out or 'covered in fur' the next morning.
Regarding 'added sugars', what has to be understood is that every plant has sugar in it as does every animal. It is photosynthesis and glucose is the transport molecule for energy captured from the sun. It is not rocket science but I did not feel that any of this was explained to me very clearly at school or on any TV science program. But added sugars are the cuckoo in the nest of normal sugars, much like how chocolate Easter Eggs have very little to do eggs created by birds, lizards, amphibians and other animals. Yet some people conflate the two, particularly in online discussion.
However, if your teeth are good because there is no sucrose that ever goes anywhere near them in 'added form', then it becomes a pleasure to give them a quick polish.
My point still stands though, there is a lot of money made from tooth related FUD and sugary food. I just wished a dentist had spilled the beans to me many decades ago that it really is simple to have excellent oral hygiene just be avoiding the added sugars, and, to a lesser extent, the processed food.
Nowadays my teeth always feel good. I used to eat things like biscuits and crisps (chips) for my teeth to not feel great the next day, even if I had thoroughly brushed my teeth the night before. By every metric I just find the situation very different, the gums have definitely 'grown back' and I am sure some tartar is now below the gumline.
If eating a diet that is essentially whole food, plant based with no added sugars or processed foods, then that means no preservatives. Many common preservatives kill bacteria, or specific bacteria such as 'anything but yeast'. This makes sense for shelf life but I am not sure it helps with the gastrointestinal tract, which includes the mouth. There are good bacteria and then there is the one that lives off sucrose to make plaque. If you are eating standard issue bakery products then you are killing off the bad guys whilst giving the yeast=like strains that live off sucrose a free pass.
Incidentally, after I banished sugar from my home, I was reading the label of the toothpaste one day whilst brushing my teeth. And you will never guess what? Sugar. The cheek of it, putting sugar in toothpaste. That is perpetuating a problem that was being set out to be solved.
Generally though, the no sugar under any circumstances rule has raised my baseline oral hygiene to the best that it has ever been. I cut coffee and dairy too, so it is not difficult or a challenge to put in the effort to get them really nice for when I am meeting someone. However, I no longer feel obligated to brush them twice a day lest they feel like they are falling out or 'covered in fur' the next morning.
Regarding 'added sugars', what has to be understood is that every plant has sugar in it as does every animal. It is photosynthesis and glucose is the transport molecule for energy captured from the sun. It is not rocket science but I did not feel that any of this was explained to me very clearly at school or on any TV science program. But added sugars are the cuckoo in the nest of normal sugars, much like how chocolate Easter Eggs have very little to do eggs created by birds, lizards, amphibians and other animals. Yet some people conflate the two, particularly in online discussion.
> The thing is that if brushing your teeth means a world of pain then you do it out of obligation and it is not a happy experience.
Yes, investments often come in the form of obligations. Less than ten minutes each day is nevertheless cheap by self-care standards. Even by the standards of a person with pained teeth, they'd probably rather brush than undertake such a strict diet.
I'm aware that all of this must seem terribly condescending, so before I go on let me just say that I honestly have no issue with the solutions you've found to your problems -- even if I disagree with some of the logic that helped you arrive at them. Everything beyond this point will be my own attempts to straighten established facts from the rest for the benefit of other readers. Live well and go in peace, friend.
> If brushing your teeth means a world of pain then you do it out of obligation and it is not a happy experience
If gentle, careful brushing causes a world of pain... that is not normal and indeed a strong indicator of advanced oral disease. Once disease advances beyond a certain point, the only reliable solution becomes professional dental treatment.
> My point still stands though, there is a lot of money made from tooth related FUD and sugary food. I just wished a dentist had spilled the beans to me many decades ago that it really is simple to have excellent oral hygiene just be avoiding the added sugars, and, to a lesser extent, the processed food.
The vast majority of dentists do want people to be healthy. It's just human nature. The core issue is that most patients don't want to be lectured -- it's bad for repeat business, so dentists learn to stay quiet about such things unless asked. Yet another one of the many tragedies caused by the systemic monetization of healthcare and something which I think we should all be more insistent about fixing.
> By every metric I just find the situation very different, the gums have definitely 'grown back' and I am sure some tartar is now below the gumline.
That is most excellent and I am genuinely pleased to hear that you are in good health. It's important to note for others, however, that the capacity for gums to "grow back" in most cases is usually lackluster. The best way to fix receding gums is to prevent the recession before it occurs with regular care -- the next best thing to do is brush and floss (or water floss!) diligently, receive regular cleanings, and maintain the routine consistently for the rest of your life.
> Many common preservatives kill bacteria, or specific bacteria such as 'anything but yeast'. This makes sense for shelf life but I am not sure it helps with the gastrointestinal tract, which includes the mouth. There are good bacteria and then there is the one that lives off sucrose to make plaque. If you are eating standard issue bakery products then you are killing off the bad guys whilst giving the yeast=like strains that live off sucrose a free pass.
This is an incredible oversimplification. Salt -- for example -- is itself a powerful preservative and you certainly would kill most gut bacteria by ingesting a sufficiently large dose... though such a large dose would prove equally deadly to the host. Preservatives are not antibiotics, they work because they're concentrated in the food and get quickly rendered harmless once eaten thanks to diffusion (Yes, even in the mouth. You can thank your saliva.)
You are of course still correct to say that modern diets wreak havoc on gut fauna, but the cause is rooted in nutrition rather than poisoning. Fauna which are beneficial in a diverse gut can turn toxic in an environment with lower biodiversity -- something which is all too easy to cause with an unbalanced diet that systematically favors only a fraction of the extant species. Sugar-heavy diets are but one of many problematic cases in this respect.
> Incidentally, after I banished sugar from my home, I was reading the label of the toothpaste one day whilst brushing my teeth. And you will never guess what? Sugar. The cheek of it, putting sugar in toothpaste. That is perpetuating a problem that was being set out to be solved.
That's sad to hear and I'm sorry you've been failed like this. With that being said... I suspect that the incentives at play are not what you imply. The toothpaste manufacturer really has very little interest in the profits derived by whichever odd dentist happens to work on your teeth -- they probably just needed a cheap filler that didn't taste bad. None of this diminishes the evil caused by such greed, but we need to be clear-eyed about where the fault lies if we want to make things better.
> I cut coffee and dairy too, so it is not difficult or a challenge to put in the effort to get them really nice for when I am meeting someone. However, I no longer feel obligated to brush them twice a day lest they feel like they are falling out or 'covered in fur' the next morning.
I want to stress again to anyone reading this that brushing is the singlemost effective way to delay the development of calculus and thus prevent tooth decay. Even if you can't feel the plaque, it's still there and almost certainly forming new calculus.
As a side-note: you may be interested to hear that plain coffee is not particularly bad for your teeth. One should avoid drinking it before brushing because the acidity can temporarily soften enamel, but aside from that all you'd have to worry about are coffee stains. Tea is similarly safe and even has a gentler PH, making most brews safe to drink even before brushing.
> It is not rocket science but I did not feel that any of this was explained to me very clearly at school or on any TV science program
I agree. Knowledge of such things is woefully undertaught. Schools seem much too eager to abdicate the responsibility for such things to parents who themselves may have never been fully taught. It is for this reason that we must often rely on the expertise of other professionals to make up for our own shortcomings, even as we simultaneously seek knowledge on our own terms.
Yes, investments often come in the form of obligations. Less than ten minutes each day is nevertheless cheap by self-care standards. Even by the standards of a person with pained teeth, they'd probably rather brush than undertake such a strict diet.
I'm aware that all of this must seem terribly condescending, so before I go on let me just say that I honestly have no issue with the solutions you've found to your problems -- even if I disagree with some of the logic that helped you arrive at them. Everything beyond this point will be my own attempts to straighten established facts from the rest for the benefit of other readers. Live well and go in peace, friend.
> If brushing your teeth means a world of pain then you do it out of obligation and it is not a happy experience
If gentle, careful brushing causes a world of pain... that is not normal and indeed a strong indicator of advanced oral disease. Once disease advances beyond a certain point, the only reliable solution becomes professional dental treatment.
> My point still stands though, there is a lot of money made from tooth related FUD and sugary food. I just wished a dentist had spilled the beans to me many decades ago that it really is simple to have excellent oral hygiene just be avoiding the added sugars, and, to a lesser extent, the processed food.
The vast majority of dentists do want people to be healthy. It's just human nature. The core issue is that most patients don't want to be lectured -- it's bad for repeat business, so dentists learn to stay quiet about such things unless asked. Yet another one of the many tragedies caused by the systemic monetization of healthcare and something which I think we should all be more insistent about fixing.
> By every metric I just find the situation very different, the gums have definitely 'grown back' and I am sure some tartar is now below the gumline.
That is most excellent and I am genuinely pleased to hear that you are in good health. It's important to note for others, however, that the capacity for gums to "grow back" in most cases is usually lackluster. The best way to fix receding gums is to prevent the recession before it occurs with regular care -- the next best thing to do is brush and floss (or water floss!) diligently, receive regular cleanings, and maintain the routine consistently for the rest of your life.
> Many common preservatives kill bacteria, or specific bacteria such as 'anything but yeast'. This makes sense for shelf life but I am not sure it helps with the gastrointestinal tract, which includes the mouth. There are good bacteria and then there is the one that lives off sucrose to make plaque. If you are eating standard issue bakery products then you are killing off the bad guys whilst giving the yeast=like strains that live off sucrose a free pass.
This is an incredible oversimplification. Salt -- for example -- is itself a powerful preservative and you certainly would kill most gut bacteria by ingesting a sufficiently large dose... though such a large dose would prove equally deadly to the host. Preservatives are not antibiotics, they work because they're concentrated in the food and get quickly rendered harmless once eaten thanks to diffusion (Yes, even in the mouth. You can thank your saliva.)
You are of course still correct to say that modern diets wreak havoc on gut fauna, but the cause is rooted in nutrition rather than poisoning. Fauna which are beneficial in a diverse gut can turn toxic in an environment with lower biodiversity -- something which is all too easy to cause with an unbalanced diet that systematically favors only a fraction of the extant species. Sugar-heavy diets are but one of many problematic cases in this respect.
> Incidentally, after I banished sugar from my home, I was reading the label of the toothpaste one day whilst brushing my teeth. And you will never guess what? Sugar. The cheek of it, putting sugar in toothpaste. That is perpetuating a problem that was being set out to be solved.
That's sad to hear and I'm sorry you've been failed like this. With that being said... I suspect that the incentives at play are not what you imply. The toothpaste manufacturer really has very little interest in the profits derived by whichever odd dentist happens to work on your teeth -- they probably just needed a cheap filler that didn't taste bad. None of this diminishes the evil caused by such greed, but we need to be clear-eyed about where the fault lies if we want to make things better.
> I cut coffee and dairy too, so it is not difficult or a challenge to put in the effort to get them really nice for when I am meeting someone. However, I no longer feel obligated to brush them twice a day lest they feel like they are falling out or 'covered in fur' the next morning.
I want to stress again to anyone reading this that brushing is the singlemost effective way to delay the development of calculus and thus prevent tooth decay. Even if you can't feel the plaque, it's still there and almost certainly forming new calculus.
As a side-note: you may be interested to hear that plain coffee is not particularly bad for your teeth. One should avoid drinking it before brushing because the acidity can temporarily soften enamel, but aside from that all you'd have to worry about are coffee stains. Tea is similarly safe and even has a gentler PH, making most brews safe to drink even before brushing.
> It is not rocket science but I did not feel that any of this was explained to me very clearly at school or on any TV science program
I agree. Knowledge of such things is woefully undertaught. Schools seem much too eager to abdicate the responsibility for such things to parents who themselves may have never been fully taught. It is for this reason that we must often rely on the expertise of other professionals to make up for our own shortcomings, even as we simultaneously seek knowledge on our own terms.
God, no condescension there! Thanks for the advice.
The whole diet/nutrition world is full of people that think they know best - everyone with a stomach has an opinion - "I know this one!" - so it is often necessary to go outside orthodoxy to get some logic/reason/experience from someone that actually knows.
I used to work in the bicycle trade and I don't wear a helmet. Car dependent people always have kittens about that, you can imagine their pokey fingers now... But I do wear a hi-viz jacket, so it is a prevention rather than harm reduction approach I take. If I can be seen then I won't get hit.
I also always sold the helmets because that was what customers wanted. Why leave that sweet profit on the table to sell them a $5 hi viz jacket instead? Their safety is not the same as my boss's profit motive. Priorities.
So I don't think there is a conspiracy to keep everyone with rotten teeth. Dentists are just in the same position as me selling bicycles. Why give people the lecture about being visible on the roads when they just want to dress in black from head to toe, wearing a helmet that they will not adjust correctly, for it to not work beyond anecdotal 'my mate's life was saved...' and for it to have inconvenience value?
With dentists there is an unsustainable regime. Nobody is flossing, brushing, mouth-washing and doing all these things that the dentist told them to do, it is almost always minimal effort.
I honestly think there is a very small market for a decent book that is for people that want good teeth and can sustain a sugar free diet.
After discovering the sugar in the toothpaste I looked into the alternatives and the arm 'n' hammer baking soda products seem the best out of the commonly available ones. Do I need to buy the $5 product that will only shift tartar after 10000 brushings or do I just get baking soda for $0.50 and strip off my enamel too, and in one brushing?!?!
I really like your tip on the tea. I quit coffee not as a permanent thing but as an everyday thing, for black tea. The idea was that coffee would have treat value. But alas I don't care for it now. I never saw myself as addicted even though that was all I drank for decades.
I am trying to develop course content for a cookery course where there is some A/B testing. One group get the 'eat your vegetables and do your exercise' message of condescension, whereas the other group get invited to do their own sugar free lifestyle change, in their own time and at their own pace so that they can stick it. I hope that the sugar free group succeeds, with the metric primarily being home cooking. With a sugar free 'streak' to maintain, all junk food is off the menu whereas a 'cut down' message means this is not so.
Cutting down is a bit like telling smokers they can have one and a half cigarettes a day. People in my target audience are not in the best of health and can contemplate cold turkey, whereas rich people with a busy social life absolutely cannot contemplate cutting the sugar.
There is a world of difference between health advice for the healthy and those that are far, far from it. 9 teaspoons of sugar a day, as recommended, is fine for the healthy, but for the person that is quite ill from sugar abuse over decades, cold turkey makes more sense. Yet the gatekeepers for these people are from the middle class world where sugar is not seen as the enemy.
The whole diet/nutrition world is full of people that think they know best - everyone with a stomach has an opinion - "I know this one!" - so it is often necessary to go outside orthodoxy to get some logic/reason/experience from someone that actually knows.
I used to work in the bicycle trade and I don't wear a helmet. Car dependent people always have kittens about that, you can imagine their pokey fingers now... But I do wear a hi-viz jacket, so it is a prevention rather than harm reduction approach I take. If I can be seen then I won't get hit.
I also always sold the helmets because that was what customers wanted. Why leave that sweet profit on the table to sell them a $5 hi viz jacket instead? Their safety is not the same as my boss's profit motive. Priorities.
So I don't think there is a conspiracy to keep everyone with rotten teeth. Dentists are just in the same position as me selling bicycles. Why give people the lecture about being visible on the roads when they just want to dress in black from head to toe, wearing a helmet that they will not adjust correctly, for it to not work beyond anecdotal 'my mate's life was saved...' and for it to have inconvenience value?
With dentists there is an unsustainable regime. Nobody is flossing, brushing, mouth-washing and doing all these things that the dentist told them to do, it is almost always minimal effort.
I honestly think there is a very small market for a decent book that is for people that want good teeth and can sustain a sugar free diet.
After discovering the sugar in the toothpaste I looked into the alternatives and the arm 'n' hammer baking soda products seem the best out of the commonly available ones. Do I need to buy the $5 product that will only shift tartar after 10000 brushings or do I just get baking soda for $0.50 and strip off my enamel too, and in one brushing?!?!
I really like your tip on the tea. I quit coffee not as a permanent thing but as an everyday thing, for black tea. The idea was that coffee would have treat value. But alas I don't care for it now. I never saw myself as addicted even though that was all I drank for decades.
I am trying to develop course content for a cookery course where there is some A/B testing. One group get the 'eat your vegetables and do your exercise' message of condescension, whereas the other group get invited to do their own sugar free lifestyle change, in their own time and at their own pace so that they can stick it. I hope that the sugar free group succeeds, with the metric primarily being home cooking. With a sugar free 'streak' to maintain, all junk food is off the menu whereas a 'cut down' message means this is not so.
Cutting down is a bit like telling smokers they can have one and a half cigarettes a day. People in my target audience are not in the best of health and can contemplate cold turkey, whereas rich people with a busy social life absolutely cannot contemplate cutting the sugar.
There is a world of difference between health advice for the healthy and those that are far, far from it. 9 teaspoons of sugar a day, as recommended, is fine for the healthy, but for the person that is quite ill from sugar abuse over decades, cold turkey makes more sense. Yet the gatekeepers for these people are from the middle class world where sugar is not seen as the enemy.
A fellow tea drinker! It is perhaps the one dietary habit that I've never regretted taking on. All things in moderation, of course... but tea is truly something special.
It's funny that you mention helmets, actually. For years when I was younger I could not afford a car, so I had to get by on a motorcycle. I worried about safety for years only to one day get plowed through, in broad daylight, at an intersection, by some fool trying to run a red light! Needless to say... they never noticed my hi-vis gear. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be dead today had I had not been wearing a helmet. If by some miracle I did survive, my face would have been completely scarred beyond recognition.
There is no moral to this anecdote of mine -- a helmet saved my life, but even I have to admit that helmets aren't always practical. I've long since moved somewhere where I never have any need to drive... yet even now I will occasionally rent one of those sidewalk scooters and zip around on a whim (usually without any helmet, naturally).
This is all to say that I agree with your stance that perfection is impossible. There's always more one could do, so we all have to draw our own lines somewhere that makes practical sense. It's why I'm very evidence-oriented when it comes to how we communicate about these things -- that's the only way to help others make informed decisions and avoid future regrets. On that day, it wasn't overly inconvenient to wear a helmet... so I wore it. This half-hearted choice is what ultimately saved my life.
I wish you luck in developing your course. Teaching is the highest calling that there is and I have trust in you to do it well. My (unsolicited) advice is to take an iteration-first strategy and allow the content to develop organically as you explore it with your pupils. In my own (limited) experience, teaching is not all that different from the scientific method -- it works best when starting from a position of being willing to accept any and outcomes.
It's funny that you mention helmets, actually. For years when I was younger I could not afford a car, so I had to get by on a motorcycle. I worried about safety for years only to one day get plowed through, in broad daylight, at an intersection, by some fool trying to run a red light! Needless to say... they never noticed my hi-vis gear. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be dead today had I had not been wearing a helmet. If by some miracle I did survive, my face would have been completely scarred beyond recognition.
There is no moral to this anecdote of mine -- a helmet saved my life, but even I have to admit that helmets aren't always practical. I've long since moved somewhere where I never have any need to drive... yet even now I will occasionally rent one of those sidewalk scooters and zip around on a whim (usually without any helmet, naturally).
This is all to say that I agree with your stance that perfection is impossible. There's always more one could do, so we all have to draw our own lines somewhere that makes practical sense. It's why I'm very evidence-oriented when it comes to how we communicate about these things -- that's the only way to help others make informed decisions and avoid future regrets. On that day, it wasn't overly inconvenient to wear a helmet... so I wore it. This half-hearted choice is what ultimately saved my life.
I wish you luck in developing your course. Teaching is the highest calling that there is and I have trust in you to do it well. My (unsolicited) advice is to take an iteration-first strategy and allow the content to develop organically as you explore it with your pupils. In my own (limited) experience, teaching is not all that different from the scientific method -- it works best when starting from a position of being willing to accept any and outcomes.
> my dentists ever told me to just quit all added sugar,
Hmm. People have been shouting that sugar is bad for a few decades.
> and all added sugar for a month.
When I go shopping, if a food item contains more than 20% sugar(irrespective whether it is added or natural), I don't buy it which means I come home only with natural produce. Also, only Splenda in coffee & tea. I have been maintaining this lifestyle for more than a decade and haven't developed any new cavities.
Hmm. People have been shouting that sugar is bad for a few decades.
> and all added sugar for a month.
When I go shopping, if a food item contains more than 20% sugar(irrespective whether it is added or natural), I don't buy it which means I come home only with natural produce. Also, only Splenda in coffee & tea. I have been maintaining this lifestyle for more than a decade and haven't developed any new cavities.
(Edit: removed unnecessary sarcasm)
I'm rather baffled that it's possible to not know that sugar is bad for your teeth, as it's pretty much the most often repeated fact about teeth ever.
Technically sugar itself doesn't do anything to teeth. But sugar is food for bacteria. Sugar in mouth = mouth bacteria happily multiply and literally form a biofilm covering your teeth (plaque). Some of them excrete acidic metabolic products. Acid dissolves enamel (hydroxyapatite). The bacteria infestation also irritates gums and causes gingvitis and so on. Less food for bacteria = fewer bacteria = healthier teeth.
I'm rather baffled that it's possible to not know that sugar is bad for your teeth, as it's pretty much the most often repeated fact about teeth ever.
Technically sugar itself doesn't do anything to teeth. But sugar is food for bacteria. Sugar in mouth = mouth bacteria happily multiply and literally form a biofilm covering your teeth (plaque). Some of them excrete acidic metabolic products. Acid dissolves enamel (hydroxyapatite). The bacteria infestation also irritates gums and causes gingvitis and so on. Less food for bacteria = fewer bacteria = healthier teeth.
Please make your substantive points without crossing into personal attack.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I have a lot of congenitally missing teeth. Dental implants were very, very expensive; and I had to go through orthodontia twice.
I hope this treatment is significantly cheaper.
I hope this treatment is significantly cheaper.
Yeah I need that. I floss 1-3 times a day, use a water pick and brush 2-3 times a day but it doesn't really matter. My body attacks itself and I've ended up with bone loss in my teeth. I'm in my 30s and I have to do periodontal care every 3 months. I foresee losing my teeth before I'm 50 unless I can get my hands on something like this.
They've already got natto
I wish our civilization made these future med tech advancements every day. Sadly only rats benefit from our greatest medical achievements from cancer cures to limb regeneration.
I think the effect is subtle but present and slightly more effective than just fluoride by itself. I travel often enough that I find myself looking for and buying Sensodyne with novamin but without whitening agents when I’m abroad but I understand others source it in the US online. Do check the ingredients - it’s in about 1/3rd of the Sensodyne packages I pick up off the shelf outside the US but certainly not all.
I follow the topic very casually - I understand hydroxyapatite, fluorapatite, and biotin were initially reported to be even better (but only through self-reported studies such as Biomin.) I couldn’t tell you why or if there is now more credibility there nor where to source it if it is. BioMin USA’s anti-fluoride stance raises a lot of red flags for me and is probably what turned me off their brand when I looked into it years ago. GSK Sensodyne sells formulations with fluoride and novamin - I wouldn’t use toothpaste without fluoride. (Edit: I see BioMin UK sells toothpaste with fluoride.)
[1] https://elemental.medium.com/why-is-the-internet-obsessed-wi... - Medium Paywall link but gets the general point across