I’m not suggesting hydroxyapetite is without merit for dental purposes, it absolutely is useful, and I agree combining it with flouride would likely be optimal (I recall reading a study that seemed to suggest HA can actually remineralize deeper into the tooth than flouride can).
I was just pointing out that the woman in the article didn’t seem to know what hydroxyapetite is actually used for, despite trying to seem like a source of knowledge.
I don’t know the woman, I’m just against improper use of science.
Most of the Flouride studies are a century old, I consider all medicine of that era to be effectively meaningless.
Let’s do some new studies and put this stupid shit to bed.
Id love studies with apatite and fluoride combined, I’d also like to see the efficacy of Flouride mouthwash and toothpaste vs in water, no reason to treat systemically if we can treat topically.
We’re practicing voodoo medicine based on tradition, let’s see if we can come up with something even better now that we’re not illiterate morons.
There are many recent studies on the efficacy of flouride, both mouth rinse and paste from the last two decades, as well as studies on the efficacy of essential oil rinses (Listerine) and stabilized chlorine (Closys).
There have been developments in flouride compositions as well, such as Stannus flouride, which has been fully stabilized and no longer stains the teeth like it once did. It brings with it advantages over the older Sodium Flouride, such as better resilience against low pH, reduction of temperature sensitivity from its ability to fill in the microtubules of the teeth, and an antibacterial effect from being stabilized to zinc, which remains on the teeth and kills caries causing bacteria for many hours after use.
I highly disagree that science is not advancing regarding dental solutions, we are very much not playing with voodoo. I would suggest instead that advancements in dental technology and science is not pushed harder due to financial interests, as wide adoption would drastically reduce the income of dentists. It’s capitalism, basically.
To give a highly encapsulated version of an ideal dental regimen based on modern science, it would be thus:
Begin with a small rinse of Closys, which is effective at penetrating biofilm in the mouth, and raises the pH of the mouth to protect the teeth from abrasion for the next step (teeth enamel becomes softened in an acidic environment).
Brush with a Stannus flouride toothpaste. The action of brushing itself even without toothpaste is beneficial, as it mechanically disturbs the colonies of bacteria on the teeth, which mouthwash alone cannot achieve. Leave the toothpaste on for a couple minutes if possible.
Without rinsing with water, spit out the remaining toothpaste and begin a rinse of classic Listerine (or off brand). The essential oils will finish off all the bacteria that the brushing dislodged, as well as get between the teeth to act as a liquid flossing.
Finish, again without rinsing with water, with a standard ACT mouth rinse (or off-brand).
This last step is is important for a few reasons.
First, it is a high pH, and will neutralize the acidic nature of the Listerine.
Second, it rinses out the alcohol of the Listerine, which if left in would have a detrimental effect on saliva production and dry mouth, which prevents the teeth from remineralizing from the phosphorous and minerals in your saliva.
Third, it introduces yet another source of flouride after the acidity of the Listerine etches the enamel, which strangely increases the absorption of the flouride (flouride is most effective in an acidic environment, but that can only be taken advantage of with a liquid, as the brush would be harmful in that environment).
Fourth, the ACT type rinse contains another antibacterial (cetylpyridinium chloride) that studies have shown stick to the enamel, killing yet more caries creating bacteria.
If this protocol is followed diligently twice a day, you will effectively entirely prevent caries causing bacteria from being able to proliferate enough to actually cause plaque buildup whatsoever, and you will likely never get another cavity for the rest of your life. Especially if combined with xylitol mints after meals, which caries causing bacteria uptake thinking it’s a sugar they can digest and use as fuel, but in fact cannot be, causing them to die. It also promotes saliva production, which increases pH and flushes the teeth with minerals.
Lastly, the reason we treat water with flouride is for the sake of those unable to afford access to, or proper knowledge of, flouride containing dental products as described above. If everyone did the above protocol, there would be no need to fluoridate water, but as that is unlikely, water fluoridation is a compromise.
I would suggest instead that advancements in dental technology and science is not pushed harder due to financial interests, as wide adoption would drastically reduce the income of dentists. It’s capitalism, basically.
See, I’m willing to go with you on your other points, but I don’t buy this at all.
Dentistry in America is ludicrously broken, but Europe has had its own way for decades, and diverged in many important ways, while having a far smaller economic incentive. My wife insisted on flying back home for all her dentistry after a catastrophic incident in the US (bad infection after unneeded root canal almost lead to sepsis). Personally I have nearly perfect teeth, or I did until recently. After the first examination I mentioned I had changed dental insurance, the dentist stepped out for a moment, came back, and suddenly I had 4 cavities that must be drilled at once. That was an eye-opening experience. My next dentist found nothing of course.
I don’t like the theory of adding compounds to water without a very, VERY compelling reason, particularly one with no alternatives. Providing free dental rinses to kids at school seems like it would solve this better, but adding it to water? If the state can add compounds to water, why not other compounds that reduce aggression? That’s actually not bad either, but can lead down a slippery slope. It’s less a concern for America, but I can imagine a communist country doing that with 0 reflection.
I’ll take up closys, I use a hydroxyapetite toothpaste that I find very powerful, alongside listerine.
There are a lot of things we could add to water that would help everyone, magnesium is at the very top of that list (as someone who grew up with rural water, city water is horrifically deficient here), but let’s just add that as a secondary supplement, it gets better scrutiny, but mostly, and here’s the real kicker:
IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE FORMULATION, WE DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYONE’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE!
Dentistry in America is ludicrously broken, but Europe has had its own way for decades, and diverged in many important ways, while having a far smaller economic incentive.
I don’t disagree with that at all. The amount of false dental procedures done in the US for monetary gain is quite high, making it a hassle to find an ethical dentist.
Providing free dental rinses to kids at school seems like it would solve this better
I think that would be a better solution in theory, but the cost of doing that en-masse across the country would be quite a bit higher than putting it in the drinking water (Single bulk purchase of fluoride with only a single person needed to be hired to add it to the water supply Vs. Millions of bottles of fluoride rinse being either being created by the government or contracted out to a company, which is then regularly distributed to schools, likely via truck, requiring hundreds to thousands of new employees to manage and run an operation of that size).
I can’t imagine a bill for that program being passed in this political climate. I mean, we can’t even get lead out of the water in many communities, and that’s far, FAR more dangerous. Not to mention PFAS now being in the water supply. Also, while that solution would help children, what about adults who cannot afford to buy fluoride rinses?
We have pretty solid evidence that shows when a community stops fluoridating their water, the poorest in that community have a pretty steep increase in preventable dental and oral health outcomes.
There is also some tentative evidence that high levels of fluoride could have negative effects to pregnant women, babies, and small developing children (potential lowering of IQ), but it’s pretty weak evidence that hasn’t been verified, and there is no evidence that it is harmful to adults.
So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don’t think it’s too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.
The places that do fluoridate their water do so publicly, is regulated and tested (and can be personally verified at home with a test kit), and adds the least amount possible to achieve the positive outcome, which comes out to a very small dose (many communities have naturally occurring fluoride in their water at higher levels)
If the state can add compounds to water, why not other compounds that reduce aggression?
That part is going a bit too far into conspiratorial thinking, IMHO, coming from someone who used to be a full on religious conspiracy theorist prepper. If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn’t personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.
The risk to a government doing that is absolutely immense, as the now modified water would be accessible and testable by the entire population that drinks it, and unless there are suddenly new chemicals that are undetectable by known scientific methods, the chances of a government being able to pull that off are below nill, and detection would result in a scandal beyond imagining.
Lower Access in Disadvantaged Areas: Studies have found that areas with greater socioeconomic disadvantage often have less access to fluoridated water. This disparity is attributed to factors such as limited infrastructure, political opposition, and logistical challenges in implementing fluoridation programs in these communities .
Variability Across Income Levels: In the United States, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) revealed that children from families with low income—but not those living in poverty—were less likely than other income groups to reside in predominantly fluoridated counties .
So your argument is somewhat flawed, poor people tend to be less flouridated, so the people who need it get it the least.
This is the wrong way to distribute this, please stop and find a better way, MOST IMPORTANTLY A CONTROLLED WAY, and work out a precise dosage schedule while you’re at it, none of this ignorant yeehaw cowboy shit where each town rolls a dice.
Rural areas tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, while also not being connected to a municipal water (it’s more economical to have your own well in rural areas).
Just because those people don’t have access to fluoridated water does not mean the solution is to then take away fluoridated water from the poor who do live in areas with municipal water.
You’re right it’s more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.
The minute that’s successfully done across the country, I would be in favor of removing fluoride from water, but only after all economically disadvantaged have that better option in place, and they are adequately educated with better habits to utilize it. I think you’ll find that it is much easier said than done.
So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don’t think it’s too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.
I disagree with your risk calculus. We are talking about something so 100% fundamental to human life, water. This is something we should consider absolutely sacrosanct, and a human right to all. It should be unthinkable to alter or modify it in any way imho.
I’m not trying to “Precious bodily fluids” here. , but this is one thing we all should have personal choice over.
You’re right it’s more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.
If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn’t personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.
I agree, which is why I don’t want any tampering or adultering of water to begin with. I trust now that the levels are appropriate, but your whole argument boils down to “we’re adding stuff to water because it’s convenient”, which is true, but a lot of things are convenient.
Let’s have people take new referenda on adding them, flouride was added in the early 1900s without any political process.
I say this as someone who grew up in areas with truly horrible water quality from agricultural and industrial runoff, that was still declared “perfectly fine” by a dramatically corrupt local government. I also lived near the town where “A Civil Action” took place, and the water tasted funny there too (not terribly bad, but still weird).
If you don’t add chlorine to your water supply, it has a tendency to harbour some much worse stuff. Like cholera. And the level to which water is artificially fluorinated is much lower that it is naturally in many places. Just ‘pure’ water would be a terrible idea
Chlorine is our anion gap, we have so much more than you can imagine, it’s literally in salt.
Flourine is less common, saying some places have a lot is like saying arsenic is fine because chile has high concentrations. The Pampas actually is known for their wines and they have massive arsenic.
I’m not suggesting hydroxyapetite is without merit for dental purposes, it absolutely is useful, and I agree combining it with flouride would likely be optimal (I recall reading a study that seemed to suggest HA can actually remineralize deeper into the tooth than flouride can).
I was just pointing out that the woman in the article didn’t seem to know what hydroxyapetite is actually used for, despite trying to seem like a source of knowledge.
I don’t know the woman, I’m just against improper use of science.
Most of the Flouride studies are a century old, I consider all medicine of that era to be effectively meaningless.
Let’s do some new studies and put this stupid shit to bed.
Id love studies with apatite and fluoride combined, I’d also like to see the efficacy of Flouride mouthwash and toothpaste vs in water, no reason to treat systemically if we can treat topically.
We’re practicing voodoo medicine based on tradition, let’s see if we can come up with something even better now that we’re not illiterate morons.
There are many recent studies on the efficacy of flouride, both mouth rinse and paste from the last two decades, as well as studies on the efficacy of essential oil rinses (Listerine) and stabilized chlorine (Closys).
There have been developments in flouride compositions as well, such as Stannus flouride, which has been fully stabilized and no longer stains the teeth like it once did. It brings with it advantages over the older Sodium Flouride, such as better resilience against low pH, reduction of temperature sensitivity from its ability to fill in the microtubules of the teeth, and an antibacterial effect from being stabilized to zinc, which remains on the teeth and kills caries causing bacteria for many hours after use.
I highly disagree that science is not advancing regarding dental solutions, we are very much not playing with voodoo. I would suggest instead that advancements in dental technology and science is not pushed harder due to financial interests, as wide adoption would drastically reduce the income of dentists. It’s capitalism, basically.
To give a highly encapsulated version of an ideal dental regimen based on modern science, it would be thus:
This last step is is important for a few reasons.
If this protocol is followed diligently twice a day, you will effectively entirely prevent caries causing bacteria from being able to proliferate enough to actually cause plaque buildup whatsoever, and you will likely never get another cavity for the rest of your life. Especially if combined with xylitol mints after meals, which caries causing bacteria uptake thinking it’s a sugar they can digest and use as fuel, but in fact cannot be, causing them to die. It also promotes saliva production, which increases pH and flushes the teeth with minerals.
Lastly, the reason we treat water with flouride is for the sake of those unable to afford access to, or proper knowledge of, flouride containing dental products as described above. If everyone did the above protocol, there would be no need to fluoridate water, but as that is unlikely, water fluoridation is a compromise.
See, I’m willing to go with you on your other points, but I don’t buy this at all.
Dentistry in America is ludicrously broken, but Europe has had its own way for decades, and diverged in many important ways, while having a far smaller economic incentive. My wife insisted on flying back home for all her dentistry after a catastrophic incident in the US (bad infection after unneeded root canal almost lead to sepsis). Personally I have nearly perfect teeth, or I did until recently. After the first examination I mentioned I had changed dental insurance, the dentist stepped out for a moment, came back, and suddenly I had 4 cavities that must be drilled at once. That was an eye-opening experience. My next dentist found nothing of course.
I don’t like the theory of adding compounds to water without a very, VERY compelling reason, particularly one with no alternatives. Providing free dental rinses to kids at school seems like it would solve this better, but adding it to water? If the state can add compounds to water, why not other compounds that reduce aggression? That’s actually not bad either, but can lead down a slippery slope. It’s less a concern for America, but I can imagine a communist country doing that with 0 reflection.
I’ll take up closys, I use a hydroxyapetite toothpaste that I find very powerful, alongside listerine.
There are a lot of things we could add to water that would help everyone, magnesium is at the very top of that list (as someone who grew up with rural water, city water is horrifically deficient here), but let’s just add that as a secondary supplement, it gets better scrutiny, but mostly, and here’s the real kicker:
IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE FORMULATION, WE DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYONE’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE!
I don’t disagree with that at all. The amount of false dental procedures done in the US for monetary gain is quite high, making it a hassle to find an ethical dentist.
I think that would be a better solution in theory, but the cost of doing that en-masse across the country would be quite a bit higher than putting it in the drinking water (Single bulk purchase of fluoride with only a single person needed to be hired to add it to the water supply Vs. Millions of bottles of fluoride rinse being either being created by the government or contracted out to a company, which is then regularly distributed to schools, likely via truck, requiring hundreds to thousands of new employees to manage and run an operation of that size).
I can’t imagine a bill for that program being passed in this political climate. I mean, we can’t even get lead out of the water in many communities, and that’s far, FAR more dangerous. Not to mention PFAS now being in the water supply. Also, while that solution would help children, what about adults who cannot afford to buy fluoride rinses?
We have pretty solid evidence that shows when a community stops fluoridating their water, the poorest in that community have a pretty steep increase in preventable dental and oral health outcomes.
There is also some tentative evidence that high levels of fluoride could have negative effects to pregnant women, babies, and small developing children (potential lowering of IQ), but it’s pretty weak evidence that hasn’t been verified, and there is no evidence that it is harmful to adults.
So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don’t think it’s too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.
The places that do fluoridate their water do so publicly, is regulated and tested (and can be personally verified at home with a test kit), and adds the least amount possible to achieve the positive outcome, which comes out to a very small dose (many communities have naturally occurring fluoride in their water at higher levels)
That part is going a bit too far into conspiratorial thinking, IMHO, coming from someone who used to be a full on religious conspiracy theorist prepper. If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn’t personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.
The risk to a government doing that is absolutely immense, as the now modified water would be accessible and testable by the entire population that drinks it, and unless there are suddenly new chemicals that are undetectable by known scientific methods, the chances of a government being able to pull that off are below nill, and detection would result in a scandal beyond imagining.
Btw, asked gpt4o this question:
So your argument is somewhat flawed, poor people tend to be less flouridated, so the people who need it get it the least.
This is the wrong way to distribute this, please stop and find a better way, MOST IMPORTANTLY A CONTROLLED WAY, and work out a precise dosage schedule while you’re at it, none of this ignorant yeehaw cowboy shit where each town rolls a dice.
Rural areas tend to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, while also not being connected to a municipal water (it’s more economical to have your own well in rural areas).
Just because those people don’t have access to fluoridated water does not mean the solution is to then take away fluoridated water from the poor who do live in areas with municipal water.
The minute that’s successfully done across the country, I would be in favor of removing fluoride from water, but only after all economically disadvantaged have that better option in place, and they are adequately educated with better habits to utilize it. I think you’ll find that it is much easier said than done.
Everyone on this argument seems to be posting a rather religious position and rationalizing backwards.
Europe has vastly better dental health in every possible way, without flouridation.
It’s not working, cut the shit.
I disagree with your risk calculus. We are talking about something so 100% fundamental to human life, water. This is something we should consider absolutely sacrosanct, and a human right to all. It should be unthinkable to alter or modify it in any way imho.
I’m not trying to “Precious bodily fluids” here.
, but this is one thing we all should have personal choice over.
You’re right it’s more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.
I agree, which is why I don’t want any tampering or adultering of water to begin with. I trust now that the levels are appropriate, but your whole argument boils down to “we’re adding stuff to water because it’s convenient”, which is true, but a lot of things are convenient.
Let’s have people take new referenda on adding them, flouride was added in the early 1900s without any political process.
I say this as someone who grew up in areas with truly horrible water quality from agricultural and industrial runoff, that was still declared “perfectly fine” by a dramatically corrupt local government. I also lived near the town where “A Civil Action” took place, and the water tasted funny there too (not terribly bad, but still weird).
If you don’t add chlorine to your water supply, it has a tendency to harbour some much worse stuff. Like cholera. And the level to which water is artificially fluorinated is much lower that it is naturally in many places. Just ‘pure’ water would be a terrible idea
Chlorine absolutely makes sense.
Chlorine is our anion gap, we have so much more than you can imagine, it’s literally in salt.
Flourine is less common, saying some places have a lot is like saying arsenic is fine because chile has high concentrations. The Pampas actually is known for their wines and they have massive arsenic.