First law of dentistry: Any innovation that does not increase dentist margin, will not reach market.
To expand on this argument. I think even medical health care is more open to innovation that mainly benefits consumer health. Doctors are kind of oblivious of the cost of procedures. This has a host of other problems, but at least innovation and health outcomes are aligned (and less aligned with cost). Dentists are massively private equity owned where I live. Bottom line is everything. You notice that where you’re in the chair. Six minute procedures (the billing time) always take seven. Kids are state insured and always get upsold to whatever procedure is fashionable (or should I say: has the highest margin). I have a strong feeling innovations are swallowed up and shelved in this sector. It makes sense for the PE to kill innovation once you have a market cornered.
The only thing this anti market rant (not my usual spiel) does not have is an explanation for how PE coordinates the suppression of innovation. I should look into the owners of the parties that deliver the dentist supplies and machinery. That would be the best way to corner a market, by owning the supply chain as well.
I understand the negative outlook, but consider that this invention, being less-invasive, could be a draw to some patients. With the saturation of dental offices, some are trying to position themselves as higher-end "spas" with gentle-touch services and/or for people with sensory issues. So it's not just margin, it can also be market-share oriented.
Despite the headline, this is not a toothbrush. This is a "toothbrush-shaped ultrasound transducer". Mind you, I don't know why this wouldn't "increase dentist margin". This is an analysis tool that makes dentistry easier (just like dental X-rays).
"The Department of Health and Human Services is directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make new recommendations on the addition of fluoride to U.S. water sources. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has blamed the fluoridation of water for a number of health problems."
In the 1970s it was all the rage that there were patents on 200 mpg carburetors, but the oil companies bought the patents in order to suppress those carburetors.
I asked my dad about it (career Air Force). He laughed and said that gasoline consumption was a major logistics problem for the military. If there were 100 mpg carburetors, the military was going to use them, and to hell with any patent blockade.
(Note all the problems the Germans had in WW2 when the US severely damaged their oil refineries.)
I am a big believer in this. Dentistry is one of the largest grifts in modern medicine, I would put it up there with Chiropractors. Go see 5 dentists and you will get 5 wildly different opinions. I am certain there are good ones out there but it’s way too hard to evaluate.
Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I don't have much faith in Chiropractors, because the science is thin or inconclusive, but dental health is much more obvious. There are a billion procedures you can get done and I would agree that things like polishing are of limited value, but the imaging, checkups and repairs are very valuable in my mind. I've never heard of someone going to a Chiropractor for primarily preventative reasons.
> Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I have had a lot of dental work done, including 4 implants. But I don't remember a _single_ dental prescription-only item.
Just wait until you look into treatments for dry eye. Bunch of different expensive drugs and therapies. Not covered by insurance. All of them "work for some people" and do nothing for others, and there's no way to tell ahead of time for most of the treatments.
I would not be too sure of this with current administration upheaval. The health system is broken in bad and good ways now. If you build it, it can succeed much to the chagrin of well paid dental 'experts'
OT: Why is 2 minutes still the recommended time to brush your teeth for (by the ADA)?
Lets say the baseline is 100 vibrations or brushes (or swipes) per minute for a manual toothbrush.
If an electric toothbrush vibrates 8000 times per minute (or any other measurable metric), then shouldn't the amount of time you need to brush for be lowered?
Seems like the whole brush your teeth for 2 minutes was just a very general guideline but was never updated to be very scientific since the introduction of electric toothbrushes.
Also, can we have electric toothbrushes advertise vibrations per minute? or some other metric like that?
It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker.
As others have already mentioned, it's more about general guidance ensuring you're actually getting all your teeth. Plus, you want to have the flouride toothpaste actually on your teeth for some period of time.
If you want to see if you're actually brushing enough, change up your strategy and use plaque disclosing tablets to see if you're still adequately hitting everything.
> It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker
Probably related to people brushing their teeth too hard with these more powerful toothbrushes.
It still takes 2 minutes to clean your teeth, even with the highest end ultrasonic. That is because you have to go tooth by tooth getting all angles.
Yes, it is impossible to clean your teeth as well with a normal brush in the same 2 minutes, but that doesn't mean that under 2 minutes of ultrasonic will suffice.
Like just because an elevator moves twice as fast doesn't mean you can go from 2 elevators to 1 and still service all floors with the same standard.
I always thought the 2 mins was to make sure fluoridated toothpaste sits on your teeth for long enough to work. Number of brushes is only one angle of why you brush.
This sounds cool, my dentist is probably even cool enough to buy one when it's fda approved, but like the "wave form analysis" device they bought this year, it will only be used for specialist purposes and can't be used to replace x rays, or in this case periodontal proving, and almost entirely because of the slow moving insurance industry. (I even asked how much I could pay cash to replace x rays, because fuck radiation, the answer was we have to x ray you)
In Finland there is a profession called dental hygienist, whom I visit once a year. They clean up my teeth with an ultrasound device since many years, removing tartar.
That's called an ultrasonic scaler, which is quite different to the device in the article. A scaler is for removing tartar and stain while the device in the article is an ultrasound (like the device for viewing babies during pregnancy) which looks under your gums at your tooth roots and bones to see if you have any bone loss or gum disease.
You might not have the dentist or dental hygienist use the probe very often. When they do it's a rounded straight tip device, and they usually call out numbers to an assistant for how deep under the gumline the probe can reach. That's the procedure this device would replace. If nothing else it's an improvement because you don't need an assistant to record the numbers, and if someone has bad gum disease it might hurt them when you poke in there with a probe.
I went 14 years between dental visits, and the move to ultrasound cleaning was the biggest change I noticed. The cleaning had always been a bloody affair, scraping and scratching in a way that would leave me with a throbbing pain after my appointment was ove. The ultrasound cleaning was like science fiction.
In the US most visit that person twice a year. They have that ultrasound machine, but they only use it on people who don't visit that often - the machine just gets the build up do the point where manual tools can finish the job. If you brush/floss and visit regularly the manual tools are all they need.
In this was at least it looks like the US system is better. Of course there is no way nuance can be expressed in a short forum like this, but maybe you need to look at the Finland system to see if it is really good enough.
Readit News
To expand on this argument. I think even medical health care is more open to innovation that mainly benefits consumer health. Doctors are kind of oblivious of the cost of procedures. This has a host of other problems, but at least innovation and health outcomes are aligned (and less aligned with cost). Dentists are massively private equity owned where I live. Bottom line is everything. You notice that where you’re in the chair. Six minute procedures (the billing time) always take seven. Kids are state insured and always get upsold to whatever procedure is fashionable (or should I say: has the highest margin). I have a strong feeling innovations are swallowed up and shelved in this sector. It makes sense for the PE to kill innovation once you have a market cornered.
The only thing this anti market rant (not my usual spiel) does not have is an explanation for how PE coordinates the suppression of innovation. I should look into the owners of the parties that deliver the dentist supplies and machinery. That would be the best way to corner a market, by owning the supply chain as well.
i dont see why it couldnt reach the market
Deleted Comment
> toothpaste is usually self-administered haha
very funny. this is a toothbrush, unless you have someone brush your teeth it is always self administered
I mean, that's under attack now.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/10/g-s1-59452/hhs-rfk-fluoride-d...
"The Department of Health and Human Services is directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make new recommendations on the addition of fluoride to U.S. water sources. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has blamed the fluoridation of water for a number of health problems."
I asked my dad about it (career Air Force). He laughed and said that gasoline consumption was a major logistics problem for the military. If there were 100 mpg carburetors, the military was going to use them, and to hell with any patent blockade.
(Note all the problems the Germans had in WW2 when the US severely damaged their oil refineries.)
Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I have had a lot of dental work done, including 4 implants. But I don't remember a _single_ dental prescription-only item.
If an electric toothbrush vibrates 8000 times per minute (or any other measurable metric), then shouldn't the amount of time you need to brush for be lowered?
Seems like the whole brush your teeth for 2 minutes was just a very general guideline but was never updated to be very scientific since the introduction of electric toothbrushes.
Also, can we have electric toothbrushes advertise vibrations per minute? or some other metric like that?
It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker.
If you want to see if you're actually brushing enough, change up your strategy and use plaque disclosing tablets to see if you're still adequately hitting everything.
> It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker
Probably related to people brushing their teeth too hard with these more powerful toothbrushes.
Yes, it is impossible to clean your teeth as well with a normal brush in the same 2 minutes, but that doesn't mean that under 2 minutes of ultrasonic will suffice.
Like just because an elevator moves twice as fast doesn't mean you can go from 2 elevators to 1 and still service all floors with the same standard.
But even if you're comparing mSv to mSv like it's all the same, I'd rather take 33 hours of flight time per year.
There is also a problem in dentistry with chasing ghosts that only exist in imaging and doing unnecessary work.
I would not call it exactly painless though.
You might not have the dentist or dental hygienist use the probe very often. When they do it's a rounded straight tip device, and they usually call out numbers to an assistant for how deep under the gumline the probe can reach. That's the procedure this device would replace. If nothing else it's an improvement because you don't need an assistant to record the numbers, and if someone has bad gum disease it might hurt them when you poke in there with a probe.
In this was at least it looks like the US system is better. Of course there is no way nuance can be expressed in a short forum like this, but maybe you need to look at the Finland system to see if it is really good enough.
Dead Comment