Plaque-busting Nanoparticles Could Help Fight Tooth Decay

sciencehabit writes: Nanotechnology might soon save you a trip to the dentist. Researchers have developed tiny sphere-shaped particles that ferry a payload of bacteria-slaying drugs to the surface of the teeth, where they fight plaque and tooth decay on the spot (abstract). The approach could also be adapted to combat other plaquelike substances, known as biofilms, such as those that form on medical devices like orthopedic implants.

Comments

How about cutting sugar*

[ruir]

Much like the tobacco industry in the 60s, the sugar industry has been lobbying right and left for not be of medical advice on the open to cut out on sweets, unlike it is done for alcohol and tobacco nowadays. Be proactive. It is far cheaper too.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

Native Americans did not have problems with tooth decay until they learned how to cultivate corn and significantly increased their intake of sugars.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

they also did not live long enough to experience tooth decay

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

Native Americans didn't live long enough for tooth decay to be a serious problem, so your point is kind of moot.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of: the natives did have sugars, but they also had bad teeth. Read Hernan Cortes sometime: the natives were using sugar from many sources, including agave plants and something that sounds suspiciously like corn syrup. Later Spanish writers report that wherever agave grew, the natives had rotten teeth.

CAPTCHA: lashings

Re:How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

But it isn't just sugar that the Republicans are pushing with their farming subsidies. It is other carbohydrates like rice and corn that they are forcing down the throats of the poor. The ADA is a powerful force within the Republican political machine. Don't expect the dentists to allow a reduction in consumption of carbohydrates without putting up a huge fight.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

Native Americans didn't live long enough for tooth decay to be a serious problem, so your point is kind of moot.

All too often, when discussing the many chronic diseases (diabetes, obesity, hypertension, heart disease, many cancers, and yes, dental caries) that appeared to be mostly absent in hunter-gatherer populations but are rampant among 'civilized' populations, many people dismiss such observations by rationalizing that because these populations had much lower life expectancy *at birth* then therefore *nobody* in those populations lived long enough to develop these diseases.

But that is clearly not the case. Look at the data for life expectancy by age for the US from 1850-2011. Yes, life expectancy at birth was nearly half what it is now but the gap narrows considerably if you survived past 20. That is to say, most of the increase in life expectancy at birth comes from curing the childhood illnesses from which many died very young. And while far fewer people lived to 90-100 than now, living into the 70s-80s was not exactly uncommon.

Also, note that the link you provided shows that life expectancy at birth dropped significantly as hunter-gatherers progressed towards agriculture. The archeological evidence suggests that as early cultures adopted agriculture they became smaller in stature, had many more dental issues, and likely died younger overall. Jared Diamond details the evidence in his well-known book, Guns Germs and Steel.

It is also well documented that the doctors like Albert Schweitzer who treated the dwindling number of remaining hunter-gatherer populations in the late 19th/early 20th centuries observed very few cases of the "chronic diseases of civilization" as they came to be known, even among the oldest people in those communities, and far lower rates than could be explained by "they just don't live long enough." Yet soon after adopting western diets and/or lifestyles, they would develop these illnesses at similar rates as western populations.

So I guess only if you ignore the vast amount of evidence that counters the "didn't live long enough" hypothesis, the question might be moot, otherwise maybe you should keep your mind open to alternative explanations.

Re:How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's the Republican's fault you have cavities. Geez.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

I think you've over-thought my post, I was mostly making a snarky response to the nonsensical argument that sugar is the problem. :)

It's hard for me to get worked up about sugar. Want to talk about heart disease and attribute it to our sugar intake? I have a single word response: exercise. Regarding dental caries, studies suggest that only 10% to 40% of the population flosses on a regular basis. The variation depends on how you define 'regular', but the 'never flosses' group is invariably >50% of the population. Flossing comes with health benefits that extend outside of the mouth and makes you more attractive to potential mates (as does exercise) but most people can't be bothered.

Society has an obsession with sugar that has gotten out of hand, in my not so humble opinion. I've read articles written by MDs condemning the intake of fruit juices, in Runner's World of all publications! That's a magazine aimed at distance runners, do you really think that a few glasses of orange juice are a problem for that population? "Reduce your intake of fruit juice to lose weight!" Umm, fuck you, I'm running 20+ miles a week, I'll drink as much orange juice as I want. I may even have a soda. :) (I actually hate soda, but you get the idea....)

Since you brought it up, I don't dispute the "diseases of civilization" hypothesis, it's certainly true on the macroscopic scale of western civilization. On the individual level though? I don't buy it. There are things one can do to manage the "risks" of civilization, starting with exercise and sensible dietary choices. The people that don't do these things, well, that's their loss. They're still better off than they would be in a hunter-gatherer society.

Re:How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

You think it isn't? You must be racist/sexist/anti-gay/islamaphobic/etc!!!!!!!! HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE! You intolerant POS GET IN LINE and be like all the other civilized people!

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[sackvillian]

But that is clearly not the case. Look at the data for life expectancy by age for the US from 1850-2011. [infoplease.com] Yes, life expectancy at birth was nearly half what it is now but the gap narrows considerably if you survived past 20. That is to say, most of the increase in life expectancy at birth comes from curing the childhood illnesses from which many died very young. And while far fewer people lived to 90-100 than now, living into the 70s-80s was not exactly uncommon.

What makes you think that the same trend applied to hunter-gatherers? The lifestyle of those born in 1850 likely has no resemblance to the lifestyle of hunter-gatherers.

Next question -- ever consider that maybe the roughly 50% of people who died around or before age 20 may be a population that's much more vulnerable to "chronic diseases of civilization"? Maybe the reason there weren't many type-2 diabetics or sufferers of congestive heart failure in their 50s is because the people most prone to such diseases were long since in their graves.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[slimjim8094]

I used to think like you, but the fact of the matter is that most animals simply don't get cavities. Seriously! I mean, their teeth are very capable of getting cavities, but haven't you wondered why humans have teeth that "go bad" without regular maintenance? Have you ever known a dog to floss? The idea that all calories are equal is a tempting one, especially to engineer-types like myself, but it doesn't seem to be true.

Eating simple sugars is quite rare in the animal world, and presumably primitive humans. We like them so much because they are simple, high-density sources of energy compared to extracting a few calories from some nuts and greens. An early human would get as much as they could - which wasn't very much at all. But we are not set up to mostly run on them to the extent that we try today, and I think the evidence on that is increasingly clear. It's not necessarily simply a question of physical fitness, though it's true that that will probably mitigate many of the downsides like weight gain. The input matters, and calories and nutrients are not necessarily fungible - it doesn't go without saying that getting all your calories and nutrients via soda and multivitamins (and I guess fiber pills) is equivalent to e.g. a balanced diet of vegetables and protein even if the caloric and vitamin content is exactly the same. This of course ignores the fact that it is far, far easier to blow through your calorie budget with high-density foodstuffs.

It is a hard problem to solve. The basic problem is that our favorite foods bear no relation to foods that we should be eating, which was fine when the only foods there were to eat (mostly) *were* the foods we should be eating - or vice versa, the foods that are good for us are the ones that we evolved to eat. But we have an artificial abundance of the foods we really like, but didn't used to be able to get in common practice.

And for the record, I eat like a pig, am overweight, etc (though I'm working on it now that I have time). I do not practice the "paleo" fad diet and think most of its claims are bogus. But even though we don't know much about what "primitive" people actually ate, we do know that simple sugars are rare in nature unless artificially grown. Humans are clearly quite adaptable when it comes to diet... but perhaps not infinitely adaptable. We already know that trans fats are shockingly bad, for instance. Perhaps this applies to simple sugar as well - both are found in nature, although much much more rarely than we have been using them. If for no reason other than calories, most people would be better off eating no sugar at all - which would make it much harder to have stupendously high calorie diets.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[ChrisMaple]

Tooth decay starts early. A great deal of it occurs before puberty, during which time children crave sweets and haven't really gotten the knack of good teeth brushing. Optimistically, 42% of Americans have had a cavity by age 11.

The idea that primitives don't live long enough to have tooth decay problems is silly.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

but the fact of the matter is that most animals simply don't get cavities. Seriously! I mean, their teeth are very capable of getting cavities, but haven't you wondered why humans have teeth that "go bad" without regular maintenance? Have you ever known a dog to floss?

Have you ever actually owned a dog or a cat? Every one I've ever had eventually developed problems with their teeth as they aged, usually ending with the tooth in question needing to be pulled. You don't even need my personal anecdote, it's right here at the top of a Google search: While dental caries is not common in the domestic pet, it does occur and should be watched for.

The idea that all calories are equal is a tempting one

I didn't claim that all calories are equal, I said that exercise and flossing are more effective ways to improve health than obsessing about sugar intake.

And for the record, I eat like a pig, am overweight, etc (though I'm working on it now that I have time).

Now that you have time?! Thank you for proving my point that most people just can't be bothered. It's your bloody life we're talking about and your excuse for being a fat ass is "I didn't have the time?" You couldn't find three hours a week to go for a fucking walk? That's only 25 minutes a day. I really hate that weak ass excuse. Blame your proclivity for eating, I'm a foodie, I'd understand that, eating is one of the best pleasures of the flesh.

The time excuse is bogus. I have friends that manage to work full time, raise kids, and train for marathons, a commitment that requires running 15 to 40 miles a week. We've had several athletic presidents, including complete fitness nuts, all of whom found the time to maintain their health despite the office. I highly doubt that your obligations are more time consuming than those of the President of the United States.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

I was merely using that as an illustration to counter the common misconception that lower life expectancy at birth in a population equates to no one growing old enough to experience diseases that become more common with age. That data clearly indicates otherwise, not to mention that anthropologists who studied the last remaining hunter-gather societies do note that they did indeed have people who lived to ripe old ages.

As to your hypothesis that younger people were dying of diabetes and heart disease, no I haven't considered it because there is zero evidence I've ever seen of it. We have over a century's worth of well documented medical evidence that shows that it is infectious diseases, particularly those eradicated by vaccines, that caused that vast majority of infant/child mortality. Do you have even a shred of evidence that it was caused by chronic diseases? I doubt it.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

I think you've over-thought my post, I was mostly making a snarky response to the nonsensical argument that sugar is the problem.

I just did a google search of "sugar dental caries" and every single result acknowledges that excess sugar consumption is a significant contributor to dental caries. Is it the sole or even the primary problem? There does not seem to be a consensus to be sure, but to call the OP's point "nonsensical" is to once again ignore significant evidence.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Applehu Akbar]

Here in northern Arizona, corn cultivation destroyed the dentition of the Sinagua tribes in a totally different way. Grinding corn in metates, or stone depressions in rock, gave them a cornmeal laced with tiny particles of rock. This wore away their teeth by typically age 35, killing them before decay had a chance to act.

In any case, by approximately the year 1200 a practical means for the election of Republicans was discovered, making the climate hotter and drier, and the Sinagua had to leave the area.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

Well, I guess a quick Google search makes you a subject matter expert.

Speaking of ignoring significant evidence, I see you opted not to respond to or even acknowledge my point about flossing statistics. You'll forgive me if I reject the notion that sugar intake is the public health issue we need to be most worried about.

Even if I accept the premise, here's a little devil's advocate for you: Find a way to meet the caloric requirements of 7,000,000,000 human beings without carb-centric diets. There's a reason why a pound of pasta costs $0.99 while chicken goes for $1.99 a pound. It's worse if you examine it on a calorie for calorie basis, the chicken is nearly six times as expensive in that instance. The disparity is worse with other forms of meat, chicken is probably the cheapest meat you can commonly get, at least in the United States.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[jbmartin6]

Chimps eat tons of fruit. Fruit isn't simple sugars?

Re:How about cutting sugar*

[ruir]

Yep, because it so much better to eat and drink all shit, and be a frustrated fatso with health and mental issues, but hey, a true consumer that patronises the food and the medical industry. If it is your idea of living a life to the full, it is not exactly mine.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

No, a quick google search does not make me a subject matter expert, but it does show that that your characterization of the idea that sugar plays a major role in dental caries as 'nonsensical' is pretty wide of the mark.

And I didn't respond to your point about flossing because it is utterly irrelevant your original assertion. The question of whether flossing mitigates tooth decay (and I would agree that it does) is completely orthogonal to the question of whether sugar contributes to it.

Likewise, your devil's advocate point about needing carb-centric diets to maintain the world's current population is completely orthogonal to the question of whether or not such diets are healthy. As noted before and reflected in your original posted link, life expectancy and general health appears to have declined significantly as hunter-gatherers transitioned to agriculture. Yet it also true that agriculture supported much larger populations than the hunter-gatherers could, which is why agricultural societies came to dominate. So there is no contradiction to suggest we are seeing the same dynamic now: that we are collectively choosing to sustain a population that is doubling every 50 years on diets that may well be causing us (or at least some of us) chronic disease.

And of course, I didn't say anything previously about carbs in general; my original post was mostly to counter the erroneous point that Native Americans would not live long enough to get tooth decay, and then to counter your characterization of the idea that sugar causes tooth decay as 'nonsensical', both of which you had no answer for and instead started arguing far afield of your original point. I get it, you don't want to believe that modern levels of sugar consumption could be a dietary problem, and that you run a lot and fuck anyone who tells you that guzzling fruit juice afterwards might not be ideal. And maybe for you it isn't a problem (or not yet, anyway), but there *is* pretty clear evidence that for at least a significant number of people it is an issue. But the fact that you've so quickly brought your original argument from "Native Americans didn't live long enough to get tooth decay" to "society has an obsession with sugar that has gotten out of hand" to "how do we feed 7 billion people without carb-heavy diets?" indicates that you are grasping at straws to support your belief when confronted with contrary evidence, in my opinion.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

As noted before and reflected in your original posted link, life expectancy and general health appears to have declined significantly as hunter-gatherers transitioned to agriculture.

Correlation does not indicate causation. Compare the population density of hunter-gatherer societies against agricultural ones. I wonder in which society you'd be more likely to contract smallpox?

indicates that you are grasping at straws to support your belief when confronted with contrary evidence, in my opinion.

Do tell, what is that you think I believe? I've never claimed that sugar doesn't contribute to dental (or other health) problems. I simply stated that it's not the problem. I'm sorry that you failed to parse the word "the" in my post. I suppose I should have been clearer and said "It's not the problem I would be most concerned with."

I regard the obsession over sugar as nonsensical, given that 2/3'rds of the population fails to meet recommended guidelines for physical activity. More than one quarter (28%) of the population is completely inactive. Yep, clearly it's soda that's the problem....

"how do we feed 7 billion people without carb-heavy diets?"

I only raised that point to point out the unsustainable nature of fad diets like Atkins or Paleo. There are people (not you) in this discussion that seem to think modern agriculture is a bad thing. Unless they propose to kill off the bulk of humanity I fail to see what the alternative is.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

Correlation does not indicate causation. Compare the population density of hunter-gatherer societies against agricultural ones. I wonder in which society you'd be more likely to contract smallpox?

I am not arguing causation, only pointing out the observation and that a diet which supports greater population does not mean that individuals might not less healthy overall as a result. There may indeed be other reasons for this observation other than diet, but diet is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But while your population density = more infectious disease hypothesis might explain why life expectancy dropped with the advent of agriculture, it does not explain the smaller stature and increased dental issues that have also been documented. That is not to say the diet then must have been the primary cause, but again, only that it is a reasonable hypothesis.

Do tell, what is that you think I believe? I've never claimed that sugar doesn't contribute to dental (or other health) problems. I simply stated that it's not the problem. I'm sorry that you failed to parse the word "the" in my post. I suppose I should have been clearer and said "It's not the problem I would be most concerned with."

Based on what you've said, it appears you believe that sugar is at most a minor contributor to tooth decay or any other chronic disease. Even with falling back to your clarified "not the problem I would be most concerned with" position, the fact that you then double down on "nonsensical" (which I think it's fair to interpret as "mostly if not completely invalid") indicates to me that you don't really believe it could have much of a contribution at all.

I regard the obsession over sugar as nonsensical, given that 2/3'rds of the population fails to meet recommended guidelines for physical activity. More than one quarter (28%) of the population is completely inactive. Yep, clearly it's soda that's the problem....

This is the standard form of pretty much every argument you've laid out: the argument that modern sugar consumption levels could cause X is nonsensical because some completely orthogonal factor mitigates X. That in itself is both logically invalid on its face and dismissive of a great deal of contrary evidence, and to me, far more 'nonsensical' than what you are arguing against.

I only raised that point to point out the unsustainable nature of fad diets like Atkins or Paleo. There are people (not you) in this discussion that seem to think modern agriculture is a bad thing. Unless they propose to kill off the bulk of humanity I fail to see what the alternative is.

Well, then I fail to see what what place that has in the discussion other than as a straw man. Even if is true that the only sustainable way to feed the future population is a carb/plant centered diet (I have my doubts, but I'll concede the point here), that in no way implies that *sugar* would be a healthy (or even necessary) part of that diet, or that the arguments that modern sugar consumption is detrimental to health are unfounded.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Shakrai]

Based on what you've said, it appears you believe that sugar is at most a minor contributor to tooth decay or any other chronic disease.

It appears you're more adept at putting words into my mouth than you are at parsing the ones I've actually written. Perhaps English is not your native language? Perhaps I'm a shitty writer? Perhaps both?

or that the arguments that modern sugar consumption is detrimental to health are unfounded

I never claimed that they were unfounded. If you believe that I said that I suggest you read what I've actually written. I simply take exception to the notion that sugar is the problem we most need to concern ourselves with. I even gave you a particularly outlandish example of what I regard as the obsession with sugar intake -- apparently fruit juice is bad now -- but you declined to acknowledge or respond to it. *shrug*

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[QRDeNameland]

It appears you're more adept at putting words into my mouth than you are at parsing the ones I've actually written. Perhaps English is not your native language? Perhaps I'm a shitty writer? Perhaps both?

Considering that I explained exactly how I was interpreting your words which you declined to correct, yet you still claim I'm misrepresenting your words, I am leaning towards you being a shitty writer.

I never claimed that they were unfounded.

No, just "nonsensical". *shrug indeed*

I even gave you a particularly outlandish example of what I regard as the obsession with sugar intake -- apparently fruit juice is bad now -- but you declined to acknowledge or respond to it.

And what was the reasoning you gave to counter that particular outlandishness? "'Reduce your intake of fruit juice to lose weight!' Umm, fuck you, I'm running 20+ miles a week, I'll drink as much orange juice as I want. I may even have a soda." Should I somehow interpret that a reasoned argument? Fruit juice is effectively pure sugar with a few vitamins in the mix and is absorbed just as rapidly as soda. That it is fructose instead of sucrose/HFCS does not change much, Even a 100% juice product like OJ still has a very high glycemic index of 71, so I'm not sure why it is so outlandish to suggest that it should be consumed in restricted quantities, particularly by people who want to control their weight or blood sugar. So what makes "Reduce your intake of fruit juice to lose weight!" such an outlandish claim?

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[pnutjam]

Your evidence for flossing's benefits outside of your mouth is weak and unlikely to stand outside of empirical bias. The evidence for sugar being bad is much stronger.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[rickb928]

How did cultivating maize impact the Mayans' health?

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[rickb928]

My first cavity was found when I was 21, my second when I was 30. But I was born before sweets were so universally available, and corn sweeteners were everywhere. Also before diet soda was plentiful or tasty...

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[rickb928]

"Have you ever actually owned a dog or a cat? Every one I've ever had eventually developed problems with their teeth as they aged, usually ending with the tooth in question needing to be pulled."

And what did you feed them? I fed my cats commercial foods, and they are really, really not very good for them, dental issues being only one of several.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[rickb928]

"There's a reason why a pound of pasta costs $0.99 while chicken goes for $1.99 a pound"

This isn't just an apples v oranges argument. Pasta chicken. One is a plentiful source of carbs, the other a plentiful source of protein.

What was your comparison intended to illustrate? If you meant to point out that protein is expensive, yup, but compare chicken and soybeans, or rice, and then we can have a more useful comparison.

Re: How about cutting sugar*

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating simple sugars is quite rare in the animal world

You have a rather restrictive definition of "animal"; there is an abundance of arthropod species that *primarily* feed on simple sugars, and some of them have larger total biomass than all mammals. Indeed, there are even mammalian nectarivores (several species of bat), and quite a few non-mammal terrestrial vertebrates too (it's widespread among birds, for example); in most cases the nectar is mainly an aqueous mixture of simple sugars and disaccharides.

I hope the particles are made in something clever

[Anonymous Coward]

...like plastic, so that we get other health problems with this really clever "solution" instead of just reducing certain intake and using a fucking toothbrush twice a day instead of just once.

I Am Crest, of Procter & Gamble....

[Shakrai]

.... resistance, is futile. Dental caries, as you know them, are over. From this time forward, your teeth will service us......

Re:I Am Crest, of Procter & Gamble....

[ArcadeMan]

Could the Borg really defeat Tooth Decay?

Re:I Am Crest, of Procter & Gamble....

[binarylarry]

Insurance is Futile.

believe it when I see it

[mix_left_and_right]

never cry wolf

Re:believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

This. These Republicans that publish these false studies are liars. They do it just to make money. Every single damn day you read about study after study that promises a better life, but they're all lies. When was the last time you read about research that actually happened? These Republicans hate us and promising a better life is just part of their bread & circuses garbage. Our lives suck and the average person is miserable and considers suicide nearly weekly because of them.

What about gut bacteria?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hunch that all these oral hygiene products are seriously affecting bowel health along with a whole host of other factors in the industrial food complex. But we have to keep our teeth and gums healthy or face other systemic risks. So what to do...

Re:What about gut bacteria?

[ArcadeMan]

Here's an idea: don't swallow the toothpaste?

Re:What about gut bacteria?

[Shakrai]

You realize you missed the perfect opportunity for a Dr. Strangelove reference, right? The industrial flood complex has teamed up with the American Dental Association to contaminate his precious bodily fluids. Bastards.....

Re:What about gut bacteria?

[dbIII]

But we have to keep our teeth and gums healthy or face other systemic risks

The link between gum problems and heart problems is especially weird, and having an infected tooth in the upper jaw is uncomfortably close to bits that keep us alive.

We Deus Ex Now

[tirefire]

"The cleaner nanites made my teeth slippery."

Deus Ex was right. Deus ex is always right.

Yeah, why NOT another drug resistant bacteria?????

[MikeLip]

I can see it now, a drug resistant plaque that starts by eating your teeth, then progresses to the rest of your head. Sweet! How about dental hygiene and a bit less reliance on magic bullets?

Re:Yeah, why NOT another drug resistant bacteria??

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I mean, sure mouthwash and toothpaste haven't caused mouth bacterial to become resistant and eat your head, but somehow this new thing will. Because magic.

Weasel words

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like ions and magnets, hucksters love to use "nanotech" in their promotion of quack products. How will we be able to tell if this turns out to actually be effective?

Re:Yeah, why NOT another drug resistant bacteria??

[Yosho]

Agreed, just like how we need to stop using vaccines so they don't produce drug-resistant strains of smallpox or measles. It's better to just wash your hands regularly.

Another gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

and more dangerous stuff in the waste-water. Rinse your teeth after eating, and brush them twice a day. It's not very difficult.

I invented this shit in 1973

[lophophore]

I did. really. tiny robots that eat all the crud off your teeth then die when no more crud.

xylitol

[swell]

Nanobots delivering drugs to my teeth? No thanks. Xylitol sweetener will kill the bacteria, lower acidity and prevent bacteria from sticking to my teeth. And it tastes great. Don't expect your dentist to tell you about it. Don't expect to find it in your ADA approved toothpaste. Why would they want you to use it?

Just as sugar devastates your oral and physical health, xylitol benefits your health in many ways. Start here: http://xylitol.org/xylitol-use...

Re:xylitol

[Anonymous Coward]

And it'll give you the runs, just like other sugar alcohols.

Re:xylitol

[rubycodez]

and immense volumes of flatulence. Also, it is extremely toxic to dogs, kills their liver.

Re:xylitol

[TeknoHog]

And it'll give you the runs, just like other sugar alcohols.

And that's why everyone in Finland (where the use of xylitol for dental care was pioneered) has chronic diarrhea. No, wait, we don't, not with the recommended small amounts.

Re:xylitol

[StikyPad]

I did, when I tried it. Chronic, explosive, and gassy. It was awful. I stuck with it for a month, hoping I would adjust, but it didn't happen. The gastrointestinal effects of Xylitol just weren't worth it for me.

Deus Ex

[Teckla]

The cleaner nanites make my teeth slippery.

Human toxicity

[manu0601]

Do they make sure this bacteria-killing stuff is not toxic for humans?

Re:Human toxicity

[rubycodez]

We gave it to 200 test subjects and not a one complained over the two year course of the study. Also, their corpses curiously did not decompose.

Plaque forming superbugs... here we come.

[Wild_dog!]

Widespread use of whatever drug will select for the population that is resistant.
Happens throughout the biosphere.

We should put it in the water supply!

[Anonymous Coward]

It wont lower the population's IQ by 1-2 points per year or anything.

Re:Yeah, why NOT another drug resistant bacteria??

[tsa]

Vaccines work in an entirely different way. They 'train' your immune system so that it's ready for the real disease when it comes. Vaccines work BEFORE you are infected, not after.

GM spray 'prevents tooth decay for life'

[Trax3001BBS]

Was touted as the stop tooth decay for good http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 18 Feb 2002; but you never heard of it again.

Not expecting these Nanoparticles to be public anytime soon, if ever.

Suntan Lotion

[Anonymous Coward]

Neat, so one can fight tooth decay by brushing your teeth with sun tan lotion.

For those not in the know, suntan lotion contains nano particles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, which reflects sunlight and also kills the skin bacteria that causes acne. This is the reason for the 'healthy glow' of swimmers.

Something Better is Already on the Market

[tmosley]

Too bad the guys who own SeLECT Defense are such terrible salesmen. Everyone in the US, at the very least, should have their teeth sealed with this. I put it on four or five years ago, and ever since then I've only had to brush once every few days, to get rid of attached food particles. Stopped my tooth decay dead in its tracks, and it was a real problem before I put it on.

"Cheater"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, interesting to note that Shakrai, the word, means cheater in russian.

is it only me?

[amlu]

i keep hearing about that evil bacteria feeding on sugars, producing acid as a byproduct, and that acids eat up your teeth, most of toothpaste around contains glycerine, and leaves a residue on the teeth after brushing, glycerine - Glycerol /ËÉlÉsÉ(TM)rÉ'l/ (also called glycerine or glycerin; see spelling differences) is a simple polyol (sugar alcohol) compound. [wikipedia] correct me if im wrong...

Xylitol

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been found that xylitol mouth rinses have a similar preventative effect.

LS

resistance for less cavities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea! Lets let tons of antibacterials into our system so that the bacteria present can evolve into ever more resistant forms. What a can't miss idea!

And then hopefully

[azav]

Heart disease next.