“is nano hydroxyapatite a good substitute for fluoride?”
Summary of results
In case someone goes down this rabbit hole, Nanohydroxyapatite and fluoride seem to prevent caries best together, better than either alone.
Japanese apagard is what I use. Novamin has an analog of hydroxyapatite in it.
I just picked up some CariFree CTx4 Gel 1100. It has Nanohydroxyapatite, Fluoride, and Xylitol.
I'm actually quite annoyed that none of the half dozen dentists I've seen in the last 15 years have mentioned Nanohydroxyapatite as a compliment to fluoride.
Novamin is not really better than fluoride, from when I looked at the studies.
Nano hydroxyapatite combined with fluoride has a little bit better evidence for it being better than fluoride alone.
Whatever the case is nano-hydroxyapatite is quietly becoming available on the US market and kids can safely swallow it so they don't develop fluorosis like I did which never goes away for the rest of your life
Novamin turns into hydroxyapatite, like in Japanese toothpastes. Fluoride and nanohydroxyapatite work better together than either alone, for carries at least. The approval process is too expensive to get through here, even though nanohydroxyapatite is used regularly in many countries.
It’s not the same thing but you can currently buy novamin and nano hydroxyapatite based pastes which help to remineralize enamel (they do not regrown teeth completely).
On the note of dental hygiene I recommend, in addition to the standard stuff:
1. Rising your mouth with water immediately after eating. If you’re at a restaurant just drink some water, swish rigorously for 15 seconds and swallow.
2. Flossing regularly soon after eating. Couple with a water flosser if possible.
Heh, touché. The European one should have novamin. The effect isn’t supposed to be drastic. In fact I stopped using novamin as well because the studies I read didn’t show substantial difference vs fluoride toothpaste. I assume your dentist didn’t notice much? I’d still give nano hydroxyapatite a try.
fyi there's a cool substance called Nano-hydroxyapatite and there are some toothpastes that contain it and in theory it rebuilds some part of enamel
Fluoride is beneficial only when applied externally on the dental enamel, where it converts the hydroxyapatite synthesized by the human cells into fluorapatite, which is less soluble in the acids contained in food or excreted by bacteria.
On the other hand, ingested fluoride has no benefits, because it cannot reach the tooth enamel and when in too large quantities it has bad effects, e.g. it may cause bone damage.
Brushing the teeth or washing the mouth with something containing fluoride is very good, drinking water with fluoride is very stupid.
been doing nano-hydroxyapatite for the same reason. I use stannous fluoride based toothpaste in the morning and nhdpa at night before bed.
Another option is just hydroxyapatite without the nano (sometimes nano particles end up having their own safety issues). A higher hydroxyapatite concentration might work almost as well. Kinder Karex is such a toothpaste. https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/finding-the-best-toothpa...
I’ve been thinking about this recently - fluorapatite is stronger than hydroxyapatite when it bonds to enamel, and less soluble by acid. But fluoride doesn’t occur in any natural processes in the body - while hydroxyapatite is a perfect biomimetic - very safe, you can swallow it safely - and also works great in toothpaste to remineralise teeth.
Currently using BioMin F (fluorapatite - very little fluoride due to a novel delivery mechanism but still) but considering switching to BioMin C (nanohydroxyapatite)
Any idea how this compares to the nano-hydroxyapatite that’s used in some non-US toothpastes?
I use apagard premio, came across it while doing research a couple of years ago (4-5) on nano hydroxyapatite. I've never really had problems with my adult teeth and I continue to not have problems, so at the very least, in my case, is not any worse than fluoride toothpaste. My dentist loves my teeth :D she told me whatever I'm doing, don't change a single thing.
Not really a source, but this Dental Hygienist talks a bit about hydroxyapatite. Sounds like it could be of at least equal effectiveness. Though further studies are needed.
That we have not migrated to hydroxyapatite from fluoride is a mystery to me. It actually remineralizes the enamel rather than protecting it. It lacks the toxicity of fluoride as well. It’s more expensive, but I suspect that’s because it hasn’t scaled yet.
It replaces hydroxide ions between phosphates in the calcium hydroxyapatite
crystal structure of the enamel. This reduces the loss of calcium due to the mild solubility of the mineral and neutralization reaction of the hydroxide with acids.
I used to buy imported NovaMin toothpaste too, but on my last batch I found that the choices had dwindled, and prices had vastly increased. With more research I found that there were now Hydroxyapatite toothpastes available both from import and in the US. Hydroxyapatite is the material of your dental enamel and manufactured Nano-hydroxyapatite seems to have essentially similar performance to NovaMin - at least in the studies I skimmed.
See also the bioactive glass compounds BioMin (fluoro calcium phosphosilicate) and NovaMin (calcium sodium phosphosilicate), which come in toothpastes that also include fluoride to cover all the bases.
https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/biomaterials/bioacti...
BioMin F is as effective as nanohydroxyapatite, and is less expensive than the Apagard nanohydroxyapatite toothpaste. (BioMin F is not yet available in the U.S. and needs to be imported.)
https://www.journalcra.com/sites/default/files/issue-pdf/317...
> remineralizes the enamel
So does fluoride. (It replaces the hydroxyl group. Your saliva already contains calcium and phosphate.) Enamel remineralized with fluoride yields fluorapatite, which has a critical PH of 4.5 vs 5.5. of hydroxyapatite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorapatite
our saliva already contains hydroxyapatite. What's the reasoning behind including it in a toothpaste? Saliva doesn't contain enough?
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.
I spoke with my dentist yesterday a bit about nano-Hydroxyapatite. It didn't sound like he had heard about products using it, which I find a little odd because he's the one that mentioned Mi Paste to me 5 years ago. But he's a pretty old guy, he may not be keeping up with the latest. He said chemically it makes sense, and it probably won't do any harm, but he couldn't back it up with any science other than Hydroxyapatite being a component of your enamel. He thought it was probably made from bovine bone, hydroxyapatite being a component of bones as well, but that was just a guess.
Seems like Mi Paste has the best science behind it, from what he is aware of. Which again, may not be the most recent.
He also recommended Pronamel toothpaste because it's got a lower grit, he said it was 46 where some toothpastes go up to 250. Just a more gentle daily process, if you keep up on your cleanings and everything.
I have thought about this in regards to combining stannous fluoride with hydroxapatite due to the synergy between fluoride and hydroxyapatite (Although I believe most studies which have found this synergy used sodium fluoride, not the traditionally superior stannous fluoride, so not sure if the synergy will uphold). I think there are only a few toothpastes on the market with a proper concentration of both sodium fluoride and hydroxyapatite, have not seen any mouth rinses with both. The problem with mixing mouthrinses or toothpastes is that you will inevitably reduce the concentrations of both active ingredients, in absolute quantity they will be the same, but I wonder if they will become overwhelmed and nullified by the relatively larger quantity of non active ingredients. IIRC hydroxyapatite in toothpaste is rated 10% max in EU, and it's also most effective at that amount, for mouth rinses it is 0.465 %. It would actually be easier to find some high fluoride toothpaste that would suffer less from dilution, I've heard recommendations of around 1500ppm, so if I am not mistaken getting a 3000ppm toothpaste would allow for ok dilution if only you had another with 20% hydroxyapatite in a 1:1 ratio. Overall the solution I am settling on is fluoride rinses when waking up and going to bed, and hydroxyapatite toothpaste twice a day, no clue about the synergy there, but seems reasonable as most hydroxyapatite pastes are filling the no fluoride market niche, which comes with the nice benefit that they aren't filled with a bunch of other trash inactive ingredients, meanwhile fluoride mouth rinse less affected by such things compared to fluoride toothpastes.
There are better toothpastes out there that use more than fluoride. Sensodyne with Novamin is one (but you need to import it), along with many that have hydroxyapatite. The latter often don’t have fluoride but there are some with both.
I've used both apagard and boka toothpastes with nanohydroxyapatite and I've enjoyed them, though my tooth sensitivity is not totally cured. I still get a jolt of pain from sweet things on certain teeth occasionally.
These n-Ha toothpastes seem at least equal to if not greater than high-fluoride options (in effectiveness) I tried previously like sensodyne and prevident (prescription-strength). I would say the boka mint toothpaste tastes better also, and as a bonus their electric toothbrush is much nicer than the old one I'd used a few years ago.
I still drink water with fluoride in it as well, mostly because it's the best tasting water I've come across. (From a city I grew up in, and I still fill jugs full to drink at home) I have well water at my house, which is safe as far as I know, but I still feel hesitant to swallow it.
You are much better off using nanohydroxyapatite for that, though; you can easily import such toothpastes from Japan via Amazon.
Nanohydroxypatite seems more effective than fluoride. But stannous fluoride looks like it has more overall benefits than sodium fluoride if you want to go to the fluoride route.
Some toothpaste have both, Dr jens for example which does have the 10% concentration shown most effective in clinical trials
Regarding the benefits the author mentions: you can just buy toothpaste with actual nanohydroxyapatite in it. I currently use the David’s brand off of Amazon and I like it.
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.
Have you tried hydroxyapatite? Just curious. (The chemical name is hydroxyLapatite, but it's usually spelled without the L in toothpastes. There's a heated debate about this on the wikipedia talk page.)
Summary: Alternative chemical that occurs naturally in the enamel has similar cavity-preventing qualities, but does not have a potentially harmful side effect for children - something fluoride has, when misused.
If you're an adult and not swallowing your toothpaste, you are not missing out on anything.
If you replace fluoride with various mixes of phosphates, calcium, and carbonates, you might be correct.
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.
i haven't found in xylitol gum that doesn't taste like ass. My nanohydroxyapatite toothpaste does use some in its formula tho, so I guess there's that.
There is a lot of anti fluoride hysteria that wants to eliminate water fluoridation, which has eliminated a cash cow for dentists = frequent cavities = fillings. The rise in fluoride made dental incomes decline as dental health improved. (sugar in soda drinks kept them alive). This paper notes that cleaning teeth and applying a topical solution and holding for 5-10 minutes and then washing is best. High fluoride toothpaste is also better than adding to water. The water method is automatic, while tooth painting = dental visit costs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK587342/
There are areas with high natural fluoride, that can stain teeth, but there is no apparent reduction in IQ in those areas. Most free fluoride is grabbed by teeth from the blood and is laid down as hydroxy fluoro apatite where it makes the tooth structure more competent as a solid by minutely filling the matrix so it has fewer flaws that bacterial acids can use to open gaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorapatite
Nano bone and teeth mineral aka nano hydroxyapatite, why would that be banned?
Nanomaterials in cosmetics, although the use of nano tubes to deliver medicine is like a basic step towards making food in the same sense as lab grown meat could deliver custom ratios of amino acids and other chemicals which wouldnt be found in the normal animal.
Perhaps these nanomaterials are bypassing the usual digestive methods in order to enter the body and this creates a new attack vector for the body to deal with, knowing its not evolved to deal with these new forms of chemicals.
Is this like an asbestos is to lungs situation in the making? Time will tell.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/ - Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ - Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8930857/ - The use of hydroxyapatite toothpaste to prevent dental caries
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
Mechanistically, it makes sense. Fluoride is intended to perform a similar role of strengthening the enamel, so it makes sense to directly use the enamel substance as a paste to provide tooth regrowth materials at the site they’re needed. It has helped me with some tooth issues.
Research hydroxyapatite toothpaste prevents cavities: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1199...
In kids: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81112-y
Research the same regenerates tooth enamel: https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118...
Another thing which is extremely helpful and I wish I had begun much earlier in life is night mouthguards because grinding your teeth in your sleep even in a subtle way does add up over years and years.
I was advised by a hygienist that the optimal is to alternate between the two. In US, sodium fluoride is available in rinses e.g. Act; stannous fluoride is available in toothpaste e.g. Perodontax.
This may be helpful although it may generate some HF in situ
Phosphoric acid and sodium fluoride: a novel etching combination on titanium
That paper says that the toothpaste with only apatite is preferable for small children, who are careless and swallow a part of the toothpaste.
If the swallowed toothpaste has fluoride, ingesting too much fluoride can cause bone defects, especially while the bones are growing.
That is also why including fluoride in the drinking water is extremely stupid, because it has positive effects only externally, in contact with the teeth, and only negative effects after it is ingested.
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).
I’m not OP or american, but i can comment. >1,500ppm concentration of fluoride is prescription only (so you either pay for a pointless dentist visit or get it on the grey market), despite being safe and much more effective at remineralisation. There are also experimental ingredients such as nanohydroxyapatite and Novamin which are difficult to find on the american market due to the FDA
I have never seen any study showing that the fluoride from the blood can have any influence on the teeth.
The enamel of the teeth does not have blood vessels, so it cannot "grab fluoride" from blood. As far as it is known, the biomineralized calcium phosphate is always hydroxyapatite. When the hydroxyapatite of the enamel of the teeth is in contact with a solution containing fluoride ions, there is a passive ion exchange process (i.e. not mediated by biological enzymes) which results in partial replacement of the more soluble hydroxyapatite with the less soluble fluorapatite.
There is no doubt that using a tooth paste with fluoride or washing the mouth with a fluoride solution can prevent caries.
However there has never been any evidence whatsoever that drinking fluoride has any beneficial effect, beyond that of the teeth being washed by the fluoride solution before ingesting it. On the contrary, it is well known that too much fluoride in the drinking water interferes with bone growth, as it happens in some countries where the drinking water is naturally rich in fluoride.
I can't say for sure. The first non-fluoride toothpaste, and the one I used for the longest amount of time, was Coral White brand[0]. Hydroxy(l)apatite is not listed as an ingredient, but I also found that it has been derived from coral since at least 1974[1]. Best I can do is... maybe?
[0] https://coraltoothpaste.com/products/coral-white-mint-toothp...
Yep that'll happen depending where you live.
Sensodyne has a bioglass (sometimes called hydroxyapatite, NOVAMIN, or Biomin) which is what you are describing however it's excluded from the Sensodyne sold in the US. The reason why is a long story [1] but if you want "good" Sensodyne you have to import it from literally anywhere else or buy a no-flouride biomin version (made by Dr. Collins who decided to go through the FDA process) in the US. Both are luckily pretty easy to get on Amazon however there's a bit of a markup.
1. https://medium.com/@ravenstine/the-curious-history-of-novami...
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.
I once read an off hand comment[1] from a dental scientist on Reddit that NovaMin® (calcium sodium phosphosilicate) was shown with strong evidence to reverse tooth decay and promote remineralization but due to complex licensing issues was made OTC in Sensodyne toothpaste everywhere but the USA.
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
I found Dr jens super paste with both Floride and 10% nanohydroxypatite, and xylitol but not stannous fluoride.
You can't get high PPM fluoride without getting a prescription unfortunately.
Sodium fluoride is a by product of aluminium production and is poisonous in high dosage. That’s why people are so anti fluoride.
Calcium fluoride is naturally occurring and was what was discovered to be so good. Well the water it was first discovered was contaminated with sodium fluoride from aluminium but the water that promoted the research was calcium fluoride.
But while sodium fluoride is poisonous in high levels. You could drink super high levels of calcium fluoride and be totally fine.
So if you’re super worried about sodium fluoride (which you shouldn’t be in tooth paste since you should spit it out and anything you swallowed is harmless as the dosage is so low) then the alternative is to source tooth paste with calcium fluoride. Which is harder to get but it does exist.
I've found them to be pretty correct. I brush and floss before I got to bed and I haven't had a cavity in over 15 years. In the past few years I've switched to using hydroxyapatite toothpaste, but that's the only big change.
Perhaps, but how much of a difference does it really make? Your saliva remineralizes your enamel naturally. I've gone over 10 years without fluoride in my toothpaste or water and my teeth are in perfect condition, at least according to the dentist. So is the toxicity of fluoride worth some clearly minor and perhaps not even necessary improvement? I used large quantities of fluoride as a child, both in toothpaste and mouth washes, and still got 10 cavities.
Fluorinated water reduced the rate of permanent dental damage among children by 25%. It's easy, cheap, and extremely effective.
Just in the spirit of sharing, microcavities are in many/most cases treatable with a hydroxyapatite toothpaste. This is true of some larger caries as well.
That's very interesting. I hope they find a way to embed it into our natural enamel. I've had problems with sensitive teeth and enamel for years.
I actually found a very interesting toothpaste with a substance that Sensodyne used to sell in the US, but completely abandoned it and now only sell it in the UK. Which is why I order my toothpaste from the UK. It a a very interested compound called NOVAMIN (Calcium Sodium Phosphosilicate) which is a "bioglass"
>NOVAMIN forms a robust hydroxyapatite-like layer over exposed dentin and within exposed dentin tubules
You can read more about it on GSK's website: https://www.gskhealthpartner.com/en-ca/oral-health/brands/se...
It includes the studies that have been done on it. Here's a seller in the UK that's selling a 2 pack for $22. It is a bit pricey, but I do feel it's worth it for the price as my sensitivity has gone down greatly while using it. I use half a strip of Colgate sensitive (as it has potassium nitrate in it, which tells the nerve ends in the dentin to stop firing as that can cause painful sensitivity) and half a strip of Sensodyne w/Novamin. https://amzn.to/3gupUcX
I originally found the stuff through this article on medium called "The curious history of NovaMin toothpaste". Apparently, it might have been originally created to help bone regeneration of injured military personnel & there's kind of a 'conspiracy' as to why it's not sold in the US.
https://medium.com/@ravenstine/the-curious-history-of-novami...
not in themselves, but the paper explains that you can easily precipitate them with calcium ions to form fluorite, which is inert and not harmful to living things. in fact reacting with calcium ions to form inert fluorite is the main reason fluoride ions are toxic to living things, because without calcium ions, lots of biological processes fail, most urgently including neurons firing; if you get a possible fluoride overdose they inject you with calcium salts to compensate
because of this rapid precipitation, fluoride ions don't really bioaccumulate in the conventional way, but since some of them do deposit in your teeth and bones, chronic exposure can result in fluorosis, which discolors teeth and makes bones harder but more brittle. very high chronic exposure levels cause neurological damage, dementia, etc. 100% natural dementia from mineral water!
Added fluoride is done at safe levels. But some natural water sources have TOO MuCH fluoride which is unsafe.
Fluoride for dental care should be replaced with vitamins D and K2, which will move calcium to the bones and teeth.
Diets could be adapted to be more tooth decay preventative.
Before. Otherwise, you're washing down all the fluoride instead of giving it time to bind to your enamel via chemical API calls.
And do you have any data showing increased bone defects in children after the introduction of fluorinated water? Because there is plenty of data showing the tremendous benefits of better dental health from fluorinated water, and dental health having a major long term health impact.
What's the problem with fluoride?
I have read that for the same reasons we preferentially uptake flourine from toothpaste and water. It does prevent cavities though.
It's largely not controversial that it is beneficial to dental health in low concentrations. The issues arise when the concentrations are higher, due to fluoride's neurotoxic potential and it's potential to compete with iodine.
Stannous fluoride delivers fluoride like sodium fluoride, but is also anti-gingivital. It didn’t take off because the product would break down in storage, leading to a tinny taste when used. I believe it was Colgate who, in the early noughties, found a way to stabilise it, I believe with the addition stannous chloride.
Toothpaste has two purposes: taste and fluoride. Stannous fluoride delivers both with anti-gingivit benefits to boot. As a layman, I’m not sure why sodium fluoride remains the default.
Unless you propose cloning municipal water systems, fluoride choice isn't really practical. Check whether a proper activated charcoal filter, possibly with additions, is capable of filtering out the small amount of F- that's present. There might also be Cl- in there to keep diseases down, acting as a disinfectant (check with your water treatment plant/website).
I think the argument for things like this is that there's a fair number of people who would not act to preserve their teeth which is a quality of life issue for them. And possibly for others if it consumes resources doing larger-scale dental work after damage occurs.
That is absolutely not true. Flouride varnish helps prevent cavities and remineralize enamel in all ages.
Here's a meta analysis for you: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK401516/
Fluorinated water is a US thing.
People elsewhere do fluoride varnishes with their Dentists and that is absolutely fine and sufficient.
Flouride is toxic, period. The argument that you are likely trying to make, to oppose my statement, is how much of it can a person ingest before having negative health effects and is it really good for your teeth. It might be better to read about its history of usage, and that many countries do not allow flouride in their drinking water, and have a cavity rate that is equal or less than that of the U.S.
https://www.primallifeorganics.com/blogs/primal-life-organic...
(The Neurotoxin Lurking in Medicine Cabinets Around the Globe)
https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-tr...
(Fluoride's Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle)
It’s called fluoride varnish. The ADA use to recommend it only for children but in the last decade they updated their guidelines to include all ages. My dentist applies it now but my insurance does not cover it.
The fact that its produced from aluminum refining is irrelevant. Also everything is poisonous in high enough doses.
I understand that calcium fluoride isn't going to harm you because its not soluble, its just like eating some inert rocks but its basically pointless to add to toothpaste.
I'm not worried about fluoride, its very helpful for dental health, I did a bunch of my PhD on this.
You can get products with the similar bioactive glass ingredient BioMin [1], though for whatever reason the version that also includes fluoride is not yet sold in the US.
[1] e.g. https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/dr.-collins-biomin-toothpa...
It isn't but some people want things 100% germ free so they'll jump through hoops to sanitize. I wash my hands, rinse the head of the brush, and use a peas sized bit of toothpaste, brush a couple minutes. Twice a day. Electric toothbrushes are too complicated and annoying. Toss after three months. You can also use a stannous fluoride based tooth paste as well as it has germ fighting capabilities over and above regular fluoride based toothpaste if that's your jam. I use boka which is a nano-hydroxyapatite based toothpaste like is commonly used in japan. No cavities in the past decade and hygenist always complements me on making her job easy. I use stannous fluoride in the mornings and n-hdap at night before I go to bed.
If you judge the truth of the information you receive based on the claimed authority of those who provide it, instead of using your own mind to discern whether that information is logically consistent or inconsistent, that is sad and I believe that this should be a cause of concern for you.
Consider the following facts, which can be easily be verified in countless sources, e.g. in books written by real chemists or "health scientists":
The mineral component of the teeth and bones grown by a human body is made of hydroxylapatite.
When a hydroxylapatite crystal is immersed in a water solution of fluoride ions, in the superficial layer of the crystal, which is in contact with the fluoride solution, some of the hydroxide anions from the crystal are dissolved in the water and they are substituted by fluoride anions, thus converting the superficial layer of the hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite.
The fluoride ions bond more strongly to apatite than the hydroxide ions, so once formed the fluorapatite layer is more resistant to dissolution than the parent hydroxylapatite.
In the conversion of hydroxylapatite into fluorapatite, like in any other chemical reaction, the converted amount increases with the concentration of the reactant, i.e. of fluoride and with the time of contact between hydroxylapatite and solution.
All of the above explain how the contact between the tooth enamel and a fluoride solution creates a superficial tooth layer that is more resistant to dissolution, which decreases the likelihood of tooth cavities.
The dependences of the conversion efficacy on fluoride concentration and on contact time explain why tooth brushing or mouth washing are far more effective in enamel hardening than drinking fluoridated water, when the fluoride concentration is low and the contact time is very short and most of the fluoride never enters in contact with the tooth enamel to have a chance to harden it.
After the fluoride is ingested, it never comes again in contact with the tooth enamel, so there is no way for it to harden the enamel.
Please tell us how your "1E10 health scientists throughout the world and history" have told you that ingested fluoride from inside your body can harden the tooth enamel from outside your body.
Perhaps the fluoride ions use The Force to harden the enamel from a distance?
The fluoride ions are carried by blood in most parts of the body, but the tooth enamel does not contain blood vessels. Even if it had blood vessels, they would have been buried in it and they would not have reached the external surface of the teeth, which is where the fluoride is needed for protection against dissolution.
Moreover, the fluoride ions spread uniformly in the entire blood volume. Only a small part of the ions pass close to the teeth, most of them pass through the bigger organs, including through the bigger bones, which, unlike the tooth enamel, contain numerous blood vessels.
Because the fluoride ions have high affinity for apatite, many of those passing through the bones stop there and remain incorporated in the mineral part of the bones.
While at the surface of the teeth fluoride is desirable, in bones it is harmful because it makes the bones more fragile, increasing the likelihood of fractures.
In conclusion, when drinking fluoridated water, only very little fluoride is retained in the tooth enamel, but most ends in the bones, so this method is much more effective in making the bones fragile than in hardening the tooth enamel.
There are only 3 ways in which the ingested fluoride could protect against tooth cavities: eating one's own excrement, washing the mouth with one's own urine or biting one's own body and drinking one's own blood or washing the mouth with it.
Whoever does not have such habits will not receive dental health benefits from ingested fluoride.
I look forward to see how "all the professionals of the world" can explain the magical ingested fluoride effect claimed to exist by the proponents of drinking water fluoridation.