Dental cleaning products have been brought up in several contexts:
And I’ve just run across “Toothpaste tablets”:
So, we have the above-mentioned tablets, tooth powder and, of course toothpaste. There’s also something called tooth soap. All of these are used with a toothbrush. There’s also a sort of stick, which is chewed to provide something akin to a toothbrush with a cleaning agent.
Which have people tried?
Which is best for the environment?
Which is best for the user?
Which is best for the wallet?
Which is best?
Should we also ask, do we need to do any of this, and which diet is best if you choose not to clean at all?
A hint of jest but a serious question.
I’ve known one couple who had reached mid life with all their adult teeth in tact, zero dental work and zero cleaning.
Our not so distant ancestors survived without brush or paste. What dental care did the many first inhabitants of the South Pacific regions practice?
Nine out of ten Dentists agree, there’s not that much money in healthy teeth, but if it’s a perfect smile you are after!
And had terrible teeth. Before modern tooth care, cleaning is part of that, it was common for people in their thirties to be almost toothless. The young were praised for their sweet breath because they didnt have a mouthful of rotten teeth. It is quite likely bad teeth contributed to high mortality in that era.
The Guardian covered this a few days ago, and it appears that their efficacy compared to toothpaste has not scientifically been proven…and there is potential they may not be good at for long term ORAL health (as many don’t contain fluoride).
It also appears that the powder is an uncompressed tablet…or tablet compressed powder.
Before thinking about buying online, it is worth reading the Guardian article:
At the end of the day one has to weigh up good oral health (and associated known disease prevention) which potentially is less sustainable than what may be an unproven fad type product. It is a shame that they don’t appear to be a direct replacements to toothpaste in a plastic tube potentially containing plastic particles (which are to they are banned in Australia).
An old subject, but perhaps a newer angle to look at. An organisation in the USA tested a number of brands of toothpastes to see what Lead (Pb) and other heavy metal contaminants they contained. While many are not brands we see here, there are a couple of well known ones that appear on the list and two Australian produced products (one which has, based on their accepted levels, “safe results”).
While the Lead content was below the FDA limit, it was mostly not nil which is often stated as the only safe level of the metal in products. How do our brands of toothpaste fare in this regard particularly those that are recommended for young children. Do we need to test here for the presence and levels?
For a list of the ones tested in the USA and the results found see (some results are still pending but it seems around 51 toothpaste types had levels that might be considered not safe)
I think independent testing would be an excellent idea. I asked an Australian company if they would be testing their product in light of it containing the ingredients that were deemed the likely cause of the lead contamination. After initially having a comment that perhaps they might do this to reassure customers I later received a refusal when I followed up months later. This topic was covered in The Guardian Toothpaste widely contaminated with lead and other metals, US research finds | US news | The Guardian
Lead is one of those metals that we can come into contact without knowing it is there. Common knowledge includes lead in older paints, some types of toys. Household piping and older kitchen items. There is always the possibly of products derived from lead containing soil or minerals coming through the food or consumer product chain. Toothpaste is not unique in that risk. To also consider many houses of not very recent construction will have lead flashing, despite there being alternatives without lead. Bunnings was freely selling lead flashing materials until relatively recent years. For those who have added roof water collection systems - there is a possibility that water is not lead free. While not treated for drinking etc there will be consumers who choose to use it as a source of untainted drinking water - method of sterilisation varying. Use on. The backyard vege garden also common.
There are water testing services which can provide sample bottles and fee for service test roof water. For most agricultural products there is a program of routine sampling to assess the ongoing risk fo multiple contaminants in clouding heavy metals. Residue and residue testing - DAFF
Medicines and supplements are also subject to regulation.
Where does tooth paste fit in and is it captured as a regulated health product or a food product or not at all? It depends according to the TGA on whether the manufacturer is making a therapeutic claim. If it is it is regulated based on the therapeutic claims made. If not it is regulated only as required for cosmetic products.
There is a gap in that toothpastes that are determined to be a therapeutic good must be registered on the ARTG and are subject to a testing program. IE to quote Google AI - this applies only to “toothpastes that make specific therapeutic claims (like treating sensitivity or having significant active ingredients for decay prevention)”.
All other tooth paste products including many which one can place in the mouth (but not intended to be ingested) miss out. We used to occasionally eat tooth paste as kids. Yummy spearmint flavours! The joys of a low sugar largely lolly free household.
All non-registered therapeutic toothpaste products are considered cosmetics and are regulated though the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) as peer the previous link.
