Hey @dang (I know it doesn't work, but isn't it fun to use your imagination?), can we get this press release replaced by a link to the actual paper [0]? This one is even open-access!
Why? The press release is much more useful for the vast majority of HN readers in my opinion. The paper is something you read if you want to know more so the right place for it is the comments.
In general, not referring to this specific case, scientific papers are often written for people with specialized background and are hard to understand for people without that background, even if they're otherwise smart and educated.
Just to say, I actually disagree entirely. I do not believe press releases are, almost ever, valuable. Papers are just a format (with some writing style conventions that tend to follow the given field-of-study); they may be intimidating for many, but the hacker spirit and ethos is to dive in and tackle it, and that will pay far more dividends for everyone reading it than to consume more advertising. :)
Unless you are actually familiar with odontology or work in the field, the paper carries little significance for the average layperson (most of us on HN).
You can buy the supplies and make nano silver flouride now, relatively cheaply compared to dental work. If you have a non corporate dentist, you could even ask them to apply it. The basic mechanism has been used on teeth forever, and adding the nano particles prevents the chemical from permanently staining your teeth black or blue (which is why it hasnt ever been more popular to begin with.)
I found other sites indicating it's entering trials soon to be on the market next year. That's still a bit speculative obviously, but it sounds more promising that just being a working theory.
If it a commercial product marketed as "homeopathic" or various nonsense loopholes that the government has been bullied into leaving open, then sure.
But an actual medical product for sale to consumers that makes claims like "restores dental enamel" would have to present scientific evidence to the FDA that this claim is accurate.
> When applied, the gel creates a thin and robust layer that impregnates teeth, filling holes and cracks in them.
Having an option other than crowning to treat cracks would be a game-changer, especially since the AAE not long ago put out a policy paper recommending that all teeth with cracks (even asymptomatic) receive crown coverage, which is both costly and presents a risk of inducing irreversible pulpitis and subsequent necrosis in the tooth (due to the heat and mechanical trauma of the crown prep.).
My teeth are so much better since I stopped drinking alcohol. I have no clue why that is, but drinking alcoholic beverages with sugar (e.g. cocktails) was especially bad. Since I stopped drinking alcohol I don't have any issues with my teeth anymore.
I have replaced my sensodyne with mirasensitive hap+. It is more expensive, even more so than sensodyne. However it has helped incredibly with my exposed roots which used to be very sensitive. Now they are less sensitive than they used to be with sensodyne. I can swish cold water and eat sour foods again.
My current routine is roughly brush_teeth(toothpaste={mirasensitive, random_cheap_toothpaste}[day%2]) as you don't need to apply HAP every single day.
I find that I still have to be careful eating apples and lemons straight up. To protect myself I thoroughly swish and rinse water a few times shortly after consuming these fruits. If I don't do that, my teeth get extremely sensitive and it takes a few days for the hap to repair it again.
Thank you for the mention of Boka. This sent me down a rabbit hole of research, both the positives compared to other toothpaste, like not containing SLS, parabens, or titanium dioxide, but also the findings of trace amounts of lead, arsenic, and mercury in it. The trace amounts are much lower than the standards considered okay by the FDA and the European regulators, but not EWG, which doesn't accept pretty much any trace amounts.
Don't see any difference. I'm on a low carb diet and never eat things with added sugar anyways, so I assume that I could even drop toothpaste alltogether.
Also, my teeth have been yellow since as long as I can remember (and long before I got into coffee and tea) and the same is true for everyone in my family - and Boka didn't change that at all.
So... it is not doing me any harm, so far, but it is also not performing any miracles.
Not saying Boka is good, but to clarify, non-additive sugars from fruits and teas can significantly affect tooth enamel in addition to citric acids. Coffee is also a big culprit as well. You definitely should not drop toothpaste altogether.
I've used `BioMin F` with fluorapatite which is apparently more effective than hydroxyapatite - it's not a miracle regrowth protein like this article seems to claim, but its definitely a noticeable difference compared to regular toothpastes.
I feel like I've been reading this exact same article for the last 15 years.. I find it very difficulty to parse what is real and what is vaporware in the medical breakthroughs community.
Just 7% of studies that do a preliminary study on humans actually get through phase 3 and get approved for use. This is before even the preliminary point, its a tooth (or even a tooth analogue) in a petri dish. No idea if the material will be safe in a human mouth yet.
There is a lot of hyping of results in medicine papers in general but its not really their fault. The entire academic world is being forced to publish or die as governments look to measure results from the science they instead get what is measured and everyone has to embellish the importance of what they found and always find positive results.
Despite how obtuse the current administration views are, this has been true for decades. The churn of new papers and hype around medicine/biotech is nothing new.
Says nothing about endemic reproducibility crisis of the social sciences.
Since student loans have been basically guaranteed (bankruptcies can’t erase student loan obligations, in an attempt to push rates lower) and tuition steeply rose, academic institutions’ ratio of administrators to students has skyrocketed to a bureaucratic mess, leading to a flywheel of higher education costs and incentivizing research for money’s sake over impact to the field.
Real impact would be reproducing notoriously iffy studies, but that doesn’t bring in the dollars.
KPIism is the death knell of modern society. In the 90s and 2000s this mantra of "measure and improve" took hold like a virus. It is in all instances I observe a rats race where everybody just starts to look for the cheat-codes instead of "doing-the-right-thing".
Arguably America is the pinnacle of this right now, where (many) politicians and (many) business leaders now feel justified do whatever's legal just to score points. I would argue this type of thinking was birthed in the UK though under Thatcher who as a first step removed the general trust in (civil servants in her case) your fellow human beings. Blair then came up to replace that trust with KPIs.
We need to get back to a world where we trust people to do the right thing - without measuring their success in short-term KPIs.
MBAs are the source of KPIism. We have spent many decades minting them at scale in the USA and now the chickens are roosting. Anything can be ruined by pursuit of KPIs at all costs. The model is to optimize a particular KPI, get your bonus, use this story to get your next job at +$X, leave, repeat. The longer story of the company does not matter, you shipped and got paid, even if the village burned down after you left.
> The entire academic world is being forced to publish or die as governments look to measure results from the science they instead get what is measured and everyone has to embellish the importance of what they found and always find positive results.
It sounds like they're running it like a business.
A lot of this is the direct result of trying to run a government like a business. If we instead left some things that are unprofitable but important to government then we'd probably get better results than having businesses do those things expecting a profit. This was the model in the 30's, 40's and 50's that led to the "golden age" that people are now trying to recapture.
You're describe an age where the government was a wash with surplus dollars. Secondly, most of these research institutions run as non-profits that effectively just cover costs (but run a large hedge fund as a side business)
The escalation in costs have come from:
- Incentives around US News College rankings (and the amenities that drive the rankings)
- Administrative (non-teaching, non-research) bloat
Research is definitely in need of reform though, but not sure these outcomes are actually causal or even corrilated.
From what I can see, taxation as GDP percentage was never really under 10% since 1950, while big cuts to the top tax rate happened in the 60s and 80s (and the federal budget was continuously in the red since mid 70s basically, with one brief exception before 2000).
> Top marginal tax rate was surprisingly not too correlated to government revenue
Yes. Which is interesting, but also makes sense if you assume that a frequent goal is to shift the tax allocation between wealth classes (adjustments to top rate would be somewhat compensated by other changes).
I think it is always too easy to find arguments for almost any position in data like this, because the overall picture changes dramatically over just a few decades; wealth/income percentiles become qualitatively different as GDP grows ("workers class" pre WW2 is quite different from the same income percentile now) and the data is noisy too, so if you squint you can interpret almost anything in there.
In a perfect world, we would have twenty identical Americas with fixed tax policies, and be able to compare their development over decades; what we have is instead a bunch of different nations radically changing their behavior basically every time a different government comes into power, and many conclusions are inevitably just educated guesswork.
Totally in agreement that we always read a lot from the conclusions based on data. Data often obfuscates.
I do think, however, that empiricism is a better framework for grounding outcomes in reality than pure ideology. Pure ideology (either way) is usually just confirms biases by cherry picking data.
Every spending problem is also an income problem. Whether you see it as a spending problem or an income problem is really just showing whether you value the things we spend money on or not.
you're describing this during an age where trillions of dollars are spent for the military industrial complex, which makes it hard to believe that there's not enough money. priorities are just...the way they are.
The golden age people are trying to recapture is the aftermath of a world war that decimated almost every major power except the US and then the US happily rebuilt everyone’s economies in exchange for riches and power. The 21st century looks very different and only really MAGA folks are looking to rewind the clock as a way to move forward.
The economic theory of MAGA, is that the united states yes rebuilt the world but also exported the US consumer economy through asymmetric nonreciprocal tariffs. Rebuilding countries made money by selling to the US consumer, not the other way around.
You can argue that it's overall bad for the economy, but I think you're missing the arguement.
The 1940s you get for free, what with the war and all nothing was ever going to be very tolerable. But what about the 1930s is a "golden age" in your opinion? What exactly is it from that era that you wish we had more of?
Look, I'm just trying to represent as best I can the sentiment that drives a lot of this regression to how things were in the early part of the 20th century. I agree completely the depression sucked. My grandparents on both sides lived through it and you could see how much it sucked in the habits they cultivated. You'll get no argument from me.
> This eventually leads to competitors taking over and those business failing
If only that fairytale were true. In the real world bloated inefficient companies bribe government, install themselves into government agencies directly (regulatory capture), and hire lobbyists to write laws which protect them from pesky upstarts through unchecked anti-competitive practices and anti-consumer regulation allowing them to stay wealthy and in power forever while killing off innovation and progress.
...which I suppose is why IBM is still the industry leader in computing, while Ford, GM, and Chrysler can't be competed with. Photographers always use Kodak film, and we all talk on our Nokia cell phones. We all shop at Sears, and fly on Pan Am.
IBM's stock price is 10 times what it was in 1991. What the hell have they even done in that time?
They don't have to be whatever you think is "industry leading in computing", because apparently just once being worth something was enough to enrich an entire generation of management while the rest of us struggle.
>Ford
Despite decades of failure that led to their struggles in 2008 and an increase in energy costs, they didn't die, and despite then selling several lines of cars that had serious defects that should no longer happen, they abandoned selling anything other than overpriced trucks and are STILL doing just fine.
>Sears
Sears was murdered to enrich a few already wealthy people. At no point did it do worse business.
Do you know which companies you didn't even mention that do not support your claim? All the gigantic conglomerates that own you.
From Disney owning a giant chunk of all media and setting national IP policy, to Sysco being one of the only food service companies because they ate all the other ones so now every restaurant is stuck selling the same food as most prisons, to Nestle owning most of the grocery store so they can sell you water that they pumped out of your aquifer for crazy rates while complaining they couldn't be profitable without slave labor, to Dupont poisoning the entire earth, to fossil fuel companies that set national energy policy, to most farming in the US being beholden to a single legal entity, to the vast majority of "Brands" in the US just being a label change of a product they did not design.
You seem to be under this absurd notion that as long as the brand name on a couple consumer items changes occasionally (due to the kinds of technological innovations that we will never see again and cannot be predicted or relied upon), everything is fine?
I never claimed that companies can't fail or change, only that bloat and inefficiencies aren't a death sentence. Even several of your examples are still alive and well and it's telling that their major declines took place in the 1980s and 1990s. Companies have gotten a lot better at abusing government and law to protect their profits over the last 40 years.
Companies have gotten a lot better at abusing government and law
Comments like this always seem to lead to calls to give the government greater power to rein in those companies.
I'm not claiming these abuses don't exist. But there's no reason not to also look at them as the government getting a lot better at taking advantage of companies, to protect their offices. If you look at it in this context, it should be clear that increasing regulatory authority is far from a solution: it's actually counter-productive, creating tools to facilitate ever-greater abuses.
You could follow the NIH news feed that contains some of what gets funded but its actually quite difficult given the various institutions all over the world that all fund studies including charities and the universities themselves. On an individual topic with time you could learn who most of the major players are and follow their news but its unique to every topic.
The potentially easier way at least to get a lay of the land is to follow pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) for the topic you are interested in, if you then look into those papers you will find funding statements as well as the place the research was conducted and use both to build up a picture of the origins of research in a field.
Afraid I don't know of an easier way not a generic one anyway. Sometimes you just have to follow the right person on twitter who announces trials or studies or be at the right conference. Start with pubmed and the output papers and that will get you started. Then also have a search on the NIH and that might lead you to some links to groups and institutions they fund.
Publish or perish is more about status & careerism within academia than any sort of govt forcing function. If you don't publish, you are invisible to your peers and your career stagnates, regardless of the govt funding environment.
It is entirely their fault. If no one agrees to do performative research, the problem will be solved.
The problem is some people prefer an academic lifestyle in exchange for doing performative research.
Yes there are other actors eg politicians demanding performative productivity, but mostly it’s the inmates running the asylum.
Academia is one failed western institution amongst many, and those failures are ultimately directed by the actions of the individuals that comprise those institutions.
> It is entirely their fault. If no one agrees to do performative research, the problem will be solved.
Right, and the prisoner's "dilemma" isn't a real thing; everyone knows it's their own fault for not just all picking the decision that gives them all the best outcome. Every individual within a network effect is obviously responsible for the outcomes the entire system produces.
They're not responsible for the situations that end up encouraging certain actions though, and they shouldn't be blamed for not being able to solve the collective action problem[1]. I'd argue that the only blame that's fair to place on them in situations like this is from direct results of their individual actions, not the propagation of incentives that are beyond their power to change regardless of their own individual decisions.
If you're willing to blame someone for not acting against their own individual interest, doesn't it make more sense for it to be the people who are going out of their way to reward others for acting in that way?
Evolution creates a situation that encourages all sorts of terrible actions, and the vast majority of people choose to control their animal instincts.
Additionally: the people who encourage the performative research are the people who control grant review. And those people are the same people as the performative researchers.
A bunch of people figured they could make a career doing bs performative research and corrupted the whole system to serve them.
Same feeling here. Dental seems particularly fraught (though maybe I just pay more attention to it out of interest). I know the cycle time between press releases/hype and actual application can be the better part of a decade, so I assume that's coloring my perception too.
re: dental in particular - It seems like enamel regeneration and stem-cell-based tooth replacement have both been in the news year-after-year without applications actually coming to market.
Does anyone know why casein phosphopeptide (Recaldent) hasn't had more success?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9294493/
You can buy the Japanese gum with Recaldent online, but I expected it to be in the gum display in retail shops by now.
Everyone knows that teeth are luxury bones in the US. The market just isn't there for fancy treatments. The ultra-wealthy just get their teeth replaced with perfect veneers anyway.
Really? This sounds more like someone's plan to get grants to research stem cells than someone's plan to repair (or replace) teeth.
We already have a natural ability to grow new teeth that replace existing ones. Everybody does it... once. Where's the research into getting it to happen again?
Theet formation is a very early procces, even before the baby is born.
> Primary (baby) teeth start to form between the sixth and eighth week of prenatal development, and permanent teeth begin to form in the twentieth week.
There has been a ton of research in the area of re-growing teeth from stem cells. A cursory search-engining will turn up a ton of articles, some going back decades, and many giving the impression that it's close to happening. I've been following it for awhile because I knew I'd be in the market for a new tooth eventually.
There have been a lot of research around USAG-1, too [1]:
> Uterine sensitization-associated gene-1 (USAG-1) deficiency leads to enhanced bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling, leading to supernumerary teeth formation.
If that could be targeted at a given tooth site (i.e. I don't want to go thru another round of deciduous teeth across my entire mouth) that would be pretty cool. We're each carrying a perfect growth matrix for new teeth, after all.
If it just repeated the process everyone is already familiar with, in which each of your teeth falls out and grows back in one at a time over a period of several years, it would already be a perfect solution to tooth decay and demand would be massive.
A similar approach was reported in 2019,[1] but that produced thinner coatings, and the recovery of the architecture of inner layers of enamel was only partial.
While I 100% agree with what you wrote, I'd just add that it does seem in my own dental visits over my lifetime that there have been real advancements, too. But yes, I agree, hard for non-expert to parse.
Seeing SLA 3D printers at my dentist's office was pretty cool. Apparently they use them for a variety of fixturing and jigs, and have a workflow that includes a handheld scanning unit that SLAMs to generate a solid model of the patient's teeth.
I have 4 crowns, 2 done using moulds, 2 using the 3d scanner. Same doc, same office. The moulded ones were ok with some adjustments, but the 3d scanned ones were perfect since day 1. I'm happy with the progress in dentistry.
I'm surprised how many low-hanging fruit issues are still not solved. So many dentists use cold or tap water for their rinse sprayer despite the fact that many people have temperature sensitivity issues with their teeth. Having lukewarm water would be trivial but I've yet to go to an American dentist that does it.
ART with HVGIC has basically solved dental caries since the 80s. But you aren't likely to get it in the US or most western nations because there is a massive industry around drilling and filling with resins and then solving the multitude of problems that such a destructive process creates. Crowns, root canal, periodontal disease etc.
A better approach is to monitor FDA updates. When an FDA trial shows positive results for a new treatment and approval for public use appears imminent, that would qualify as news in that regard.
As it turns out, this is really hard to do. There are a lot required of teeth: they have to be extremely durable to resist repeated strain of chewing ,stay in the gums, not be rejected by body, etc. It's little surprise progress has been so slow.
It is probably tough getting investment because this is ultimately cosmetic and not something covered by most dental insurance. Existing repair is probably good enough and I’d expect cheaper too.
Cancers have had extremely effective new treatments developed for in the last ten years.
Depending on the type of cancer, we now have cures or treatments that stave off death for years.
My wife has a rare type of cancer with not much research thrown at it, and even her type of cancer went from a median time of survival measured in months to several years.
Tooth regrowth is something I was really hoping for. I abused one of my molars. After years of efforts (repeated fillings, a crown) to stave off losing the tooth it finally had to come out last month. Now I'm waiting for the bone graft to "take" before getting an implant. I was hoping I'd waited long enough for tooth regrowth to become "a thing" but I have not.
(Should have taken better care of it when I was younger and not ignored the massive hole that was growing in it. Chalk it up to a bad dental experience as a child and 25+ years of avoiding dentists as a result...)
After a few years of bad mental health, I do have several dental problems, including two badly chipped front teeth. Sadly, my local dentist isn't taking any new patients at the moment so I can't get them looked at even though I now want to. It would be good if I could regrow the teeth but I think it's going to end up being an expensive procedure :/
It would be wonderful if it were someday a routine treatment, but it feels like the technology is perpetually out of reach. If the tech ever does pan out I assume it will be decades until it reaches the masses. It's difficult to be optimistic.
The anxiety about having actual problems with my tooth eventually overrode the anxiety about going to the dentist and I started going regularly (after a pause of 26 years).
I'm pleased that I found a good dentist and I've been able to overcome my anxiety. I recognize that I'm lucky in this regard.
I was also lucky in that, aside from this one problem tooth, my oral care regimen in my 26 years of not having regular dental care were sufficient to prevent any further issues. I expected to come out of that first checkup with massive problems (even though I'd never had any pain or issues) and I was pleasantly surprised.
All in all I think I'm very lucky. I tried to take care of my teeth on my own, and largely succeeded, but I do wish I'd taken care of this one problem tooth before it was too late.
I was reading your comment just as I was sat in the dentist office paying for my partner’s kid long due treatment. She was afraid of dentists and neglected treatment for too long but I took her to the same superb (and expensive) dentist I use for my own kids and she was happy and had everything done. Your comment reminded me why I do it. Thank you.
I am confused by this comment about HIV/AIDS. Is it cynical? Are you confused why we have not "cured" HIV? I grew up during the AIDS Crisis. It was awful. People were dropping like flies. Today, you can be "technically" HIV positive, but test negative, give birth to HIV-negative children, and have unprotected sex (and not infect your partner). As far as I am concerned, the battle has been won. It is a miracle in my eyes.
HIV meds have a slew unpleasant but tolerable (certainly far superior to HIV itself) side effects, imo the battle isn't "won" until the treatment is entirely inconsequential.
That said, the progress has indeed been miraculous. A great example of the capabilities modern medicine.
One-and-done HIV protection in infants - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736988 - July 2025 (First author of the paper even commented here at the time: "labanimalster - First author here. We solved a 30-year problem in gene therapy by leveraging neonatal immune tolerance. A single AAV vector injection encoding HIV antibodies achieved 89% success in newborns vs 33% in 2-year-olds, with protection lasting through adolescence. This could transform HIV prevention in regions where maintaining regular medical care is challenging. Happy to answer questions about the science or implications.")
it might be slow exponential thing, 60 years of low to medium improvements in cancer, and hopefully suddenly a few big cracks to turn it into a chronic liveable condition (or maybe cure it).
there are more articles about advanced tumors being shrunk to nothing than before (based on my personal monitoring)
I find it interesting that we are closer to regrowing teeth than hair. At least there was human clinical test for TRG-035. Is it just cause hair transplant is "good enough" stopgap solution?
I think it's more that fixing teeth is largely about replicating a specific material with one-off procedures, whereas fixing hair is all about controlling a complex never-ending process that is linked to all sorts of factors.
Also, everyone has teeth issues, whereas hair issues are mostly limited to a subsection of the population (older males, and not even all of them).
> subsection of the population (older males, and not even all of them)
Those men will pay lot of money to get back their hair though.
If I not mistaken it was Bill Gates who said more money is spent in hair regrowth research compared to vaccine to prevent diseases like malaria which kills thousand of people.
I would say, maybe look at medical studies from the opposite end, epidemiological studies look at factors that reduce mortality/morbidity. Granted, it's less flashy, basically vaccines, alcohol/tobacco reduction, increase in active lifestyle, statins/ace inhibitors, monoclonals/oncology fanciness. although someone who actually is an MPH can probably correct me.
on the neuroscience side, off the top of my head, the most impactful things have been better anticoagulants and preventive care for stroke, monoclonal abs for autoimmune diseases like MS/myasthenia, , certain stereotactic brain surgeries, and such. But considering what ails most people, the overall population effect probably is minuscule compared to say better crash safety in automobiles.
Fortunately there doesn't seem to be any harm from flossing. At least from my anecdotal experience there are positive bad breath ramifications. (I've also been conditioned, by flossing regularly, to feel like my mouth is "cleaner" after flossing, to the point that it feels bad if I don't.)
Many people are not honest about how much they floss, and those who do often don't floss correctly. We have a well understood mechanism for how tooth decay and gingivitis happen, and it's clear clinically that flossing can address these more effectively than brushing alone can. Furthermore, the subjective reduction in bad breath means harmful oral bacteria are reduced, which could have benefits beyond oral health.
This is the key issue. There is zero doubt whatsoever that flossing is essential, and the fact that the empirical evidence is equivocal shows the limitations of science to prove even the most obvious things.
I do floss, but I genuinely don't see that this is obvious. You can do a lot of damage with mechanical force, to both teeth and gums! Starting a flossing regimen after not having one tends to cause pain--isn't that a signal to stop? etc.
Furthermore, correlation is not causation and it could well be the case that flossing is associated with better outcomes without causing it. For example, people who can afford to go to the dentist regularly are therefore regularly told to floss. People who care about dental health in general probably floss more, but also may be doing other things, consciously or unconsciously, to improve outcomes. Gut (and perhaps mouth) bacteria have behavioral effects; perhaps flossing is caused by having healthy mouth bacteria!
(at least one study says mouthwash is better than floss. That seems obvious to me! liquids are smaller than floss.)
Actually, recent research suggests daily mouthwash use, especially alcohol-based and antimicrobial formulas, carries underappreciated risks (e.g., Microbiome disruption kills beneficial oral bacteria that help regulate blood pressure while promoting harmful strains linked to gum disease and certain cancers [oral, esophageal, colorectal]; Long-term alcohol-based mouthwash use is associated a with 40-60% increased risk of oral/pharyngeal cancers, with risk scaling by frequency and duration; Chlorhexidine reduces nitrate-reducing bacteria, potentially raising blood pressure and increasing prediabetes/diabetes risk even in healthy users; Some formulas actually increase acidic bacteria that lower salivary pH, promoting tooth demineralization and staining).
In other words, mouthwash offers short-term hygiene benefits but should probably not be used daily unless medically indicated. The oral microbiome matters more than we thought, and indiscriminately nuking it has downstream effects.
Do you have consistent gaps between all your teeth, and/or other conditions like strong enamel, or a good diet? If so, congratulations - flossing might not do much for you. But it's ridiculous to suggest that - if you don't floss and get food stuck between your teeth for days on end - that doesn't have a negative effect. Arguments about correlation/causation be damned.
> Starting a flossing regimen after not having one tends to cause pain--isn't that a signal to stop?
Moderate exercise after not exercising for a while causes pain - is that a signal to stop?
Any chance you would be willing to summarize the research or provide information on some relevant studies? I've always been skeptical about flossing and would like to learn more.
The wikipedia article [1] suggests that there is no strong evidence for flossing being a good thing. However, that might just be because experts have not updated the article.
I hear so many counter-logical ideas proposed with "scientific evidence". Poorly designed studies and P-Hacking has ruined the publics trust in science. I highly doubt flossing is a net negative for almost anyone.
Xylitol reduces cavity‑causing bacteria and raises salivary flow, which can increase calcium and phosphate availability. That environment supports natural remineralisation and boosts the effect of fluoride or hydroxyapatite products, but xylitol itself doesn’t deposit minerals into enamel.
For actual mineral replacement, look to fluoride toothpaste/varnish, casein phosphopeptide‑amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP‑ACP), or nano‑hydroxyapatite formulations; xylitol gum is a useful adjunct.
Coincidentally, there recently was a very similar story from another UK university, where they used a substance found in hair to make a new "tooth repair" toothpaste:
If anyone's a dentist or is close to one, I'd love to know something I haven't found a satisfactory answer for online: if the vast majority of cavities were "magically" cured over the next few years, what impact would that have on the finances of your practice?
I'm not suggesting there's a conscious conspiracy or anything malicious. But I observe that incentives are weirdly aligned. I wonder what this kind of thing would do to a very large industry if all of a sudden some percentage of business disappeared. Is it a large percentage? Would they pivot to more preventative medicine? Would patients adopt a longer duration between checkups?
I’m a dentist. If cavities vanished tomorrow, it would definitely change things, but not as much as you might guess. Cavities and crowns make up a decent slice of what most general practices do, but there’s still gum disease, cracked teeth, teeth wear, implants, bite issues, cosmetic work, and so on. A lot of what keeps people coming in isn’t just sugar, although from the outside I understand why it might look like sugar is the whole game.
Financially, there’d be a short-term hit for offices that rely heavily on fillings, but the field would adjust. Most of us would focus more on prevention, maintenance, and elective care. Dentistry has already been slowly shifting that direction for years with better materials, scanners, and aligners.
So if everyone suddenly stopped getting cavities, I’d still have plenty to do. It would just look a little different.
But if you don't have cavities, doesn't that mean that there's going to be now reduced need for not just fillings, but down the road also crowns, root canals, implants, etc (at least caused by tooth deterioration that starts as cavities)?
I think there would just be fewer dentists. It's like asking what would happen to the finances of weight loss clinics if magically Americans weren't as obese.
Teeth are still susceptible to mechanical wear, and as life expectancy is inching towards 90 (at least among wealthier people in wealthier countries), dentists will have a lot of work to do anyway.
The societal standard matters more than raw incidence of cavities etc. Three generations ago, it was considered absolutely normal to have dentures in your fifties. Nowadays, middle class people tend to die with (heavily fixed, but still their) teeth and some implants in their mouths.
Not a dentist, but my read of the situation is that dentists generally are not very excited about doing fillings and there's a push towards getting into more complex procedures like root canals, invisalign and implants. It's probably partly due to wanting to upskill and increase your repertoire and partly due to the margins. The margins with these procedures can be an order of magnitude more than that of fillings, especially anything that is supplied by a big brand.
I like how you ask explicitly for replies from dentists and then most of the answers you get are people saying they aren't dentists but still want to give their two cents anyway.
Not a dentist but I definitely couldn't see it going away. Also curious to hear a more knowledgeable opinion.
There will always be accidents and need of non-cavity repairs. As a kid I broke a healthy tooth eating Doritos. It didn't make sense to my dentist either. I've broken a less healthy (but repaired) tooth on a candy coated peanut, and one a Twizzler Nib.
I grind my teeth, so everything is being worn and torn at a higher rate. The mouth guard won't generate itself.
Hate to say it, but if I thought my teeth would stick around longer, I'd probably be more likely to seek cosmetic fixes. I'm apparently really hard on them or something.
It occludes dentinal tubules, helping reduce dentin hypersensitivity. It's a tooth-desensitizing agent helping people who are for example, very sensitive to very cold/hot temperature in their mouth.
There is evidence that it can foster enamel/dentin mineral gain, but head to head studies shows that it's comparable to regular fluoride toothpaste and not superior. E.g. In a randomized in-situ trial (Caries Research, 2017), adding 5% NovaMin to a 927-ppm SMFP toothpaste did not improve remineralization outcomes vs the same fluoride formula without NovaMin.
Also, you can find NovaMin in the US (e.g., NUPRO Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with NovaMin).
I don't know if this is everyone's experience, but you get a distinct feeling of smoothness after using it, unlike any other toothpaste. Since NovaMin reacts with saliva to remineralize the tooth you'd imagine it's a stronger bond than directly filling up crevices with nanohydroxyapatite, and studies seem to [slightly] confirm that.
anecdotal experience: my wife had somewhat botched dental filling proceedure. it probably damaged her teeth in some way and it became very sensitive for any fluids or foods. they tried to redo it, but it only increased sensitivity further.
i gave her apagard renamel (with nanohydroxyapatite ). after a few days sensitivity went down and after a few weeks it completely disappeared
Mine says "NovaMin" right on the front. There are multiple types of Sensodyne.
Btw, what really drives me crazy is that Elmex sells multiple different sorts of tooth paste with the colors green and violett, each. How can a company confuse their customers so much that they buy a tooth whitener paste instead of a remineralizing one? Did the mistake twice...
The toothpaste maker wants to claim something like "Novamin is useful". In the EU this is treated as for cosmetics, so relatively low bar to clear. In the US this is treated as pharmaceutical, so a high bar to clear. The manufacturer has decided that passing that bar is not financially sensible for them.
hydroxyapatite is a mineral like your tooth, that's how it supports remineralization.
It's actually great stuff and works wonders for tooth sensitivity above and beyond fluoride shellac. I also order it from the more civilized world.
BioMin is available in the US and is similar, but I don't find it works better and I don't like that it doesn't have fluoride. (I live in an area without fluoride in the water)
I used BioMin F for about a year, and I think it did something, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to evaluate its effectiveness.
Unfortunately it isn't actually available where I live (US), and I had to buy it from Canada... from a shop that hasn't had stock for more than a year now. I've tried ordering from other countries, but haven't found anyone else who will ship to the US.
I've tried the "BioMin Restore" toothpaste that is available in the US, and I don't feel like it's doing much of anything, but... again, not sure I'm qualified to evaluate.
If you have sensitive teeth both nHAP and novamin toothpastes help a lot there. I've tried both. nHAP is easier to get in the USA, there are several brands, for some reason some go nuts over the imported ones from Japan.
If you're going to use nHAP, get Apaguard from Japan. Their nHAP is rod shaped, not jagged. They were the first to make rod shaped nHAP and have been doing it for decades. It's not a great idea to introduce cheap/jagged nHAP into your mouth. Sharp nanoparticles tend to cause cancer.
Interesting. A very rudimentary web search begins suggesting that Biomin is the more suspicious of the two. It has a very weird Internet footprint of being this somewhat obscure-looking expensive "Health" product. I really can't find any recognizable sources on the product name. Maybe the obscurity is part of the exotic allure for some?
I used to use sensodyne for cold-sensitive teeth, but they changed ingredients to include something I’m now allergic to. Or I recently developed an allergy to whatever their unchanged ingredients are.
nanohydroxyapatite helps a lot with sensitive teeth, you can even find some brands that also have fluoride in it if you're worried about the nonfluroide versions
I'm not sure what the takeaway is here? If I read that correctly, they only found one study and just reported their results? Is that because there are literally no studies on this worldwide? I find that very hard to believe.
A systematic review like this can be helpful, in that it identifies where there are gaps in the literature, and prevents hype - if some studies show evidence of effect, and others do not, even if there are only a few published studies then we know somthing new about the totality of the literature on the subject.
That said, this particular systematic review has a couple of issues (e.g. I can't find the precise inclusion / exclusion criteria, nor can I find that it has been pre-registered on Prospero or another database).
I have written a few systematic reviews where there is very little data already availabe, and we use them to explain to funders why we need to do further research on a given topic.
I know there's value to recording the selection process and all that but it's a little funny to have a review that ends up only including one study: at that point just give me a link, not a paper.
As someone with low maintenance teeth how far has dental tech procedures improved in last 30 years? Feels dental hygienist are all using tools that haven't changed in decades.
My dental practice has only one significant improvement that I’ve noticed in the last 30 years, which is to use a sonic scaler to remove plaque instead of manual scraping with an implement. Somebody in the field would certainly be able to provide a better and more informative answer.
For the uninitiated, Theodent is a $100/tube toothpaste made with the chocolate extract theobromine, instead of fluoride, based on a similar paper quite a while back.
one of my front tooth was chipped years ago while playing around and some days ago i was feeling sensitive in that tooth i take very good care of my teeth, when i visited dentist he said this tooth will die sooner or later because of trauma it endured the nerves will slowly die and we eventually have to do root canal. i was very disappointed to know that there is nothing i can do to keep that tooth alive
well most of research i did online and the numerous videos i watched about when root canal is necessary tell this as cases that when tooth endured trauma it will slowly die it may take upto 10 years in this case nothing can be done to save tooth
there maybe some experimental approach that i dont know of that may save or heal tooth do you know any?
When i was a kid another kid stood up into my jaw, slamming my top and bottom teeth together in a weird way. My top two front teeth were basically split in half. They reconstructed those broken-off portions with porcelain or whatever and they’ve never needed to do anything else.
If it helps, I bashed my face into a step when I was like 10, cracking one front tooth and traumatizing the other. Neither tooth has needed a root canal. I get the chipped one repaired every ~10 years or so. The other is discolored.
This is horrible advice. Do everything you can to keep your original teeth, even partially with a crown is better than a post or dentures. Nothing will perform as good, and the side effects of dentures range from pain to liquid diet if/when your gums can't support them.
An artificial crown may be better, but not the roots. Natural teeth are fixed in the jaw in a very ingenious way that is durable and somewhat flexible at the same time. Not so with implants; the metal fuses with the bone in a hard way and transmits all the shocks fully into the jaw.
I don't know what you mean by "core", but using it as a material in the center of an implanted post, such that another material faces the bone, seems like cost for no benefit.
And gold is not a good bone-facing material, because bone doesn't fuse with it.
Titanium is favored for implants because it supports osseointegration.
Depending on the location, state of the bone and other parameters, anything from mild discomfort to catastrophic failure of the implant and a jaw fracture.
I have four implants, two in my lower jaw, two in my upper jaw. My lower jaw is basically stone, an extremely hard bone even by usual lower jaw standards; the dentists (plural, as one was unable to finish the job) drilling into it destroyed a few drilling bits doing so. I have never had any problems with the lower jaw implants. That bone can take almost anything in stride.
My upper jaw, on the other hand ... very delicate, just enough bone left for the implants to work, and I learnt to be careful about biting into anything harder with them.
My dad did that a couple of decades ago (we nicknamed him Bionic Mouth), and now his body is rejecting almost all of it, and he has to get even more advanced and expensive stuff to replace it (on a fixed retirement income to boot).
Wouldn't you rather reapply a coating that allows the base to regrow, than have to constant get them ground out and replaced as they accumulated small damage? Growth sounds way better than static existence.
TL;DR: EDTA is the magic ingredient that will annihilate the disease-causing biofilm on your teeth & gums, especially when you fund your own studies and spend the rest of your money made from your overpriced toothpaste gel on marketing.
Just brush and floss 2x a day, and chew gum if you like to.
Poorly designed studies, materials proposed without insight into ramifications and manufacturing, and P-Hacking has ruined the publics trust in science. I blatantly just ignore any headline like this now. Can't trust science anymore.... sad. How many new "cancer cures" have been posted to Reddit and HN over the last decade that never came to fruition.
Not to say doing the science and studying to find new approaches is not beneficial. I just think we need to reconsider how we communicate new research. Its like how CEOs hype up AI products at this point. "This will change everything ..... potentially maybe in twenty years (omitted)"
Hey @dang (I know it doesn't work, but isn't it fun to use your imagination?), can we get this press release replaced by a link to the actual paper [0]? This one is even open-access!
All the best,
-HG
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64982-y
Why? The press release is much more useful for the vast majority of HN readers in my opinion. The paper is something you read if you want to know more so the right place for it is the comments.
In general, not referring to this specific case, scientific papers are often written for people with specialized background and are hard to understand for people without that background, even if they're otherwise smart and educated.
Just to say, I actually disagree entirely. I do not believe press releases are, almost ever, valuable. Papers are just a format (with some writing style conventions that tend to follow the given field-of-study); they may be intimidating for many, but the hacker spirit and ethos is to dive in and tackle it, and that will pay far more dividends for everyone reading it than to consume more advertising. :)
All the best,
-HG
Unless you are actually familiar with odontology or work in the field, the paper carries little significance for the average layperson (most of us on HN).
Is this a commercial product that has been approved by a regulator to make these claims? Amazing. Newsworthy.
Is this a press release from a university research group, as it appears to be (the site is down)? Then it's nearly meaningless.
You can buy the supplies and make nano silver flouride now, relatively cheaply compared to dental work. If you have a non corporate dentist, you could even ask them to apply it. The basic mechanism has been used on teeth forever, and adding the nano particles prevents the chemical from permanently staining your teeth black or blue (which is why it hasnt ever been more popular to begin with.)
https://fourthievesvinegar.org/tooth-seal/
Any reports from actual users of this?
Also interested in this, but haven't tried it myself. Apparently NSF (Nano Silver Fluoride) is more commonly in non-western countries.
They have a video with some more info here: https://pt.fourthievesvinegar.org/w/9aa66b49-2ec5-497f-9f49-...
And apparently the use of NSF does have a bunch of research papers written about it: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amol-Patil-43/publicati...
No sir, but you have the honor of being the first!
Hard pass. I’ll let the moms of Facebook groups be the test subjects. Once clear results are in we can make an assessment of how well it works
A website with thieves in the url, brilliant.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2502731-cavities-could-...
I found other sites indicating it's entering trials soon to be on the market next year. That's still a bit speculative obviously, but it sounds more promising that just being a working theory.
Huh? If this was an article from a commercial entity selling a product we'd be calling it a marketing puff piece and asking for the science.
If it a commercial product marketed as "homeopathic" or various nonsense loopholes that the government has been bullied into leaving open, then sure.
But an actual medical product for sale to consumers that makes claims like "restores dental enamel" would have to present scientific evidence to the FDA that this claim is accurate.
the FDA approves all sorts of nonsense, and plenty of commercial products slide through without
show us the study
> When applied, the gel creates a thin and robust layer that impregnates teeth, filling holes and cracks in them.
Having an option other than crowning to treat cracks would be a game-changer, especially since the AAE not long ago put out a policy paper recommending that all teeth with cracks (even asymptomatic) receive crown coverage, which is both costly and presents a risk of inducing irreversible pulpitis and subsequent necrosis in the tooth (due to the heat and mechanical trauma of the crown prep.).
My teeth are so much better since I stopped drinking alcohol. I have no clue why that is, but drinking alcoholic beverages with sugar (e.g. cocktails) was especially bad. Since I stopped drinking alcohol I don't have any issues with my teeth anymore.
There is the potential of ability of people to regrow teeth
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a66012157/hu... regrowth-trials-japan/
This would highly disrupt the dental-industrial-complex
Australian dentists would ban the toothpaste in Australia if it actually works.
What about Hydroxyapatite?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyapatite
Anyone on this stuff? I want to take a break from fluoride paste.
I have replaced my sensodyne with mirasensitive hap+. It is more expensive, even more so than sensodyne. However it has helped incredibly with my exposed roots which used to be very sensitive. Now they are less sensitive than they used to be with sensodyne. I can swish cold water and eat sour foods again.
My current routine is roughly brush_teeth(toothpaste={mirasensitive, random_cheap_toothpaste}[day%2]) as you don't need to apply HAP every single day.
I find that I still have to be careful eating apples and lemons straight up. To protect myself I thoroughly swish and rinse water a few times shortly after consuming these fruits. If I don't do that, my teeth get extremely sensitive and it takes a few days for the hap to repair it again.
I've been enjoying using this over the past 3 weeks.
This is nano-hydroxyapatite, meant to be more effective than hydroxyapatite alone.
https://www.boka.com/
(P.S I'm not affiliated with boka)
Thank you for the mention of Boka. This sent me down a rabbit hole of research, both the positives compared to other toothpaste, like not containing SLS, parabens, or titanium dioxide, but also the findings of trace amounts of lead, arsenic, and mercury in it. The trace amounts are much lower than the standards considered okay by the FDA and the European regulators, but not EWG, which doesn't accept pretty much any trace amounts.
I decided to try it after all.
will you still absorb the trace amounts it if you are spitting it out and rinsing? I want to wean myself off fluoride toothpaste.
Are you supposed to spit it out and rinse or keep it on like Enamelon? A quick search says spit out but not rinse.
Been using Boka for years.
Don't see any difference. I'm on a low carb diet and never eat things with added sugar anyways, so I assume that I could even drop toothpaste alltogether.
Also, my teeth have been yellow since as long as I can remember (and long before I got into coffee and tea) and the same is true for everyone in my family - and Boka didn't change that at all.
So... it is not doing me any harm, so far, but it is also not performing any miracles.
Not saying Boka is good, but to clarify, non-additive sugars from fruits and teas can significantly affect tooth enamel in addition to citric acids. Coffee is also a big culprit as well. You definitely should not drop toothpaste altogether.
I've been using NoBS toothpaste tabs for a couple years which are nano-hydroxyapatite. I find them effective. No issues at my dentist.
In fact, a year ago, they wanted to put in a filling for a minor cavity, but I wanted to put it off and by the time I went back they said it was gone.
edit: I also like the tabs because they're easy to travel with.
Been using Boks for a couple months, haven't noticed much difference. Maybe some reduced sensitivity.
I've used `BioMin F` with fluorapatite which is apparently more effective than hydroxyapatite - it's not a miracle regrowth protein like this article seems to claim, but its definitely a noticeable difference compared to regular toothpastes.
Any specific reason? Are you concerned about Purity of Essence?
I feel like I've been reading this exact same article for the last 15 years.. I find it very difficulty to parse what is real and what is vaporware in the medical breakthroughs community.
Just 7% of studies that do a preliminary study on humans actually get through phase 3 and get approved for use. This is before even the preliminary point, its a tooth (or even a tooth analogue) in a petri dish. No idea if the material will be safe in a human mouth yet.
There is a lot of hyping of results in medicine papers in general but its not really their fault. The entire academic world is being forced to publish or die as governments look to measure results from the science they instead get what is measured and everyone has to embellish the importance of what they found and always find positive results.
Despite how obtuse the current administration views are, this has been true for decades. The churn of new papers and hype around medicine/biotech is nothing new.
Says nothing about endemic reproducibility crisis of the social sciences.
Since student loans have been basically guaranteed (bankruptcies can’t erase student loan obligations, in an attempt to push rates lower) and tuition steeply rose, academic institutions’ ratio of administrators to students has skyrocketed to a bureaucratic mess, leading to a flywheel of higher education costs and incentivizing research for money’s sake over impact to the field.
Real impact would be reproducing notoriously iffy studies, but that doesn’t bring in the dollars.
KPIism is the death knell of modern society. In the 90s and 2000s this mantra of "measure and improve" took hold like a virus. It is in all instances I observe a rats race where everybody just starts to look for the cheat-codes instead of "doing-the-right-thing".
Arguably America is the pinnacle of this right now, where (many) politicians and (many) business leaders now feel justified do whatever's legal just to score points. I would argue this type of thinking was birthed in the UK though under Thatcher who as a first step removed the general trust in (civil servants in her case) your fellow human beings. Blair then came up to replace that trust with KPIs.
We need to get back to a world where we trust people to do the right thing - without measuring their success in short-term KPIs.
MBAs are the source of KPIism. We have spent many decades minting them at scale in the USA and now the chickens are roosting. Anything can be ruined by pursuit of KPIs at all costs. The model is to optimize a particular KPI, get your bonus, use this story to get your next job at +$X, leave, repeat. The longer story of the company does not matter, you shipped and got paid, even if the village burned down after you left.
> The entire academic world is being forced to publish or die as governments look to measure results from the science they instead get what is measured and everyone has to embellish the importance of what they found and always find positive results.
It sounds like they're running it like a business.
Over time, any large business trends to increase in bloat and inefficiency, and focusing on inappropriate metrics is a big part of that.
This eventually leads to competitors taking over and those business failing, which usually results in people losing their jobs.
When governments get equally incapable, and competitors take over, it tends to be a lot more violent.
A lot of this is the direct result of trying to run a government like a business. If we instead left some things that are unprofitable but important to government then we'd probably get better results than having businesses do those things expecting a profit. This was the model in the 30's, 40's and 50's that led to the "golden age" that people are now trying to recapture.
You're describe an age where the government was a wash with surplus dollars. Secondly, most of these research institutions run as non-profits that effectively just cover costs (but run a large hedge fund as a side business)
The escalation in costs have come from: - Incentives around US News College rankings (and the amenities that drive the rankings) - Administrative (non-teaching, non-research) bloat
Research is definitely in need of reform though, but not sure these outcomes are actually causal or even corrilated.
>You're describe an age where the government was a wash with surplus dollars.
Hey, good point. We should really bring back that 90% top tax bracket rate to get the government back to being financially solvent again.
In the 20s-40s (pre-ww2), tax revenue was ~2% of GDP. It is currently >20% of GDP
It's a spending problem. You're anchoring on a talking point with out actually running numbers.
Don't believe me, run the numbers yourself.
I think your 2% number is extremely misleading.
From what I can see, taxation as GDP percentage was never really under 10% since 1950, while big cuts to the top tax rate happened in the 60s and 80s (and the federal budget was continuously in the red since mid 70s basically, with one brief exception before 2000).
OP was specifically talking about the 20s, 30s, 40s but just to add a complete picture.
Just to add some empiricism to the conversation
Fiscal Year Tariffs/Customs Individual Income Corporate Income Top Marginal Rate Receipts (% GDP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1928 14.0% (approx) DNF DNF 25.0% DNF
1935 8.4% 14.6% 14.7% 63.0% 5.1%
1940 6.1% 13.6% 18.3% 81.1% 6.7%
1944 0.9% 45.0% 33.9% 94.0% 20.5%
1952 1.2% (approx) 42.2% 32.1% 92.0% 19.0%
1960 1.3% (approx) 42.0% 23.0% 91.0% 17.8%
1970 1.1% (approx) 46.0% 18.0% 71.8% 17.9%
1980 0.8% (approx) 47.0% 12.0% 70.0% 18.9%
1990 1.3% (approx) 45.0% 9.0% 28.0% 17.8%
2000 1.1% (approx) 49.0% 11.0% 39.6% 20.0%
2010 1.2% (approx) 41.0% 9.0% 35.0% 14.6%
2015 1.3% (approx) 47.0% 10.0% 39.6% 17.6%
2019 2.0% (approx) 50.0% 7.0% 37.0% 16.3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNF=Did not find
- Tariffs fell from ≈14% of receipts in 1928 to <1% by WWII -> income taxes replaced trade duties.
- Individual income taxes overtook all other sources after 1943
- Corporate shares peaked during war mobilization (~⅓ of revenue in 1944–52).
- Top marginal tax rate was surprisingly not too corrilated to government revenue.
(REALLY wish HN did basic markdown formatting)
> Top marginal tax rate was surprisingly not too correlated to government revenue
Yes. Which is interesting, but also makes sense if you assume that a frequent goal is to shift the tax allocation between wealth classes (adjustments to top rate would be somewhat compensated by other changes).
I think it is always too easy to find arguments for almost any position in data like this, because the overall picture changes dramatically over just a few decades; wealth/income percentiles become qualitatively different as GDP grows ("workers class" pre WW2 is quite different from the same income percentile now) and the data is noisy too, so if you squint you can interpret almost anything in there.
In a perfect world, we would have twenty identical Americas with fixed tax policies, and be able to compare their development over decades; what we have is instead a bunch of different nations radically changing their behavior basically every time a different government comes into power, and many conclusions are inevitably just educated guesswork.
Totally in agreement that we always read a lot from the conclusions based on data. Data often obfuscates.
I do think, however, that empiricism is a better framework for grounding outcomes in reality than pure ideology. Pure ideology (either way) is usually just confirms biases by cherry picking data.
The government has a spending problem, not an income problem.
Every spending problem is also an income problem. Whether you see it as a spending problem or an income problem is really just showing whether you value the things we spend money on or not.
Yes, correct.
you're describing this during an age where trillions of dollars are spent for the military industrial complex, which makes it hard to believe that there's not enough money. priorities are just...the way they are.
The golden age people are trying to recapture is the aftermath of a world war that decimated almost every major power except the US and then the US happily rebuilt everyone’s economies in exchange for riches and power. The 21st century looks very different and only really MAGA folks are looking to rewind the clock as a way to move forward.
The economic theory of MAGA, is that the united states yes rebuilt the world but also exported the US consumer economy through asymmetric nonreciprocal tariffs. Rebuilding countries made money by selling to the US consumer, not the other way around.
You can argue that it's overall bad for the economy, but I think you're missing the arguement.
The 1940s you get for free, what with the war and all nothing was ever going to be very tolerable. But what about the 1930s is a "golden age" in your opinion? What exactly is it from that era that you wish we had more of?
Look, I'm just trying to represent as best I can the sentiment that drives a lot of this regression to how things were in the early part of the 20th century. I agree completely the depression sucked. My grandparents on both sides lived through it and you could see how much it sucked in the habits they cultivated. You'll get no argument from me.
> This eventually leads to competitors taking over and those business failing
If only that fairytale were true. In the real world bloated inefficient companies bribe government, install themselves into government agencies directly (regulatory capture), and hire lobbyists to write laws which protect them from pesky upstarts through unchecked anti-competitive practices and anti-consumer regulation allowing them to stay wealthy and in power forever while killing off innovation and progress.
...which I suppose is why IBM is still the industry leader in computing, while Ford, GM, and Chrysler can't be competed with. Photographers always use Kodak film, and we all talk on our Nokia cell phones. We all shop at Sears, and fly on Pan Am.
>IBM is still the industry leader in computing
IBM's stock price is 10 times what it was in 1991. What the hell have they even done in that time?
They don't have to be whatever you think is "industry leading in computing", because apparently just once being worth something was enough to enrich an entire generation of management while the rest of us struggle.
>Ford
Despite decades of failure that led to their struggles in 2008 and an increase in energy costs, they didn't die, and despite then selling several lines of cars that had serious defects that should no longer happen, they abandoned selling anything other than overpriced trucks and are STILL doing just fine.
>Sears
Sears was murdered to enrich a few already wealthy people. At no point did it do worse business.
Do you know which companies you didn't even mention that do not support your claim? All the gigantic conglomerates that own you.
From Disney owning a giant chunk of all media and setting national IP policy, to Sysco being one of the only food service companies because they ate all the other ones so now every restaurant is stuck selling the same food as most prisons, to Nestle owning most of the grocery store so they can sell you water that they pumped out of your aquifer for crazy rates while complaining they couldn't be profitable without slave labor, to Dupont poisoning the entire earth, to fossil fuel companies that set national energy policy, to most farming in the US being beholden to a single legal entity, to the vast majority of "Brands" in the US just being a label change of a product they did not design.
You seem to be under this absurd notion that as long as the brand name on a couple consumer items changes occasionally (due to the kinds of technological innovations that we will never see again and cannot be predicted or relied upon), everything is fine?
I never claimed that companies can't fail or change, only that bloat and inefficiencies aren't a death sentence. Even several of your examples are still alive and well and it's telling that their major declines took place in the 1980s and 1990s. Companies have gotten a lot better at abusing government and law to protect their profits over the last 40 years.
Companies have gotten a lot better at abusing government and law
Comments like this always seem to lead to calls to give the government greater power to rein in those companies.
I'm not claiming these abuses don't exist. But there's no reason not to also look at them as the government getting a lot better at taking advantage of companies, to protect their offices. If you look at it in this context, it should be clear that increasing regulatory authority is far from a solution: it's actually counter-productive, creating tools to facilitate ever-greater abuses.
OK, look at Boeing. When is it going to improve or fold?
> This eventually leads to competitors taking over and those business failing
It's important to note that "eventually" usually takes so long that it might as well be forever.
That was my conclusion when I attended... 15 years ago. You're not a student, you're a product.
Is there a way I can search for the studies that recently got approved? Somehow setup an alert for it?
You could follow the NIH news feed that contains some of what gets funded but its actually quite difficult given the various institutions all over the world that all fund studies including charities and the universities themselves. On an individual topic with time you could learn who most of the major players are and follow their news but its unique to every topic.
The potentially easier way at least to get a lay of the land is to follow pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) for the topic you are interested in, if you then look into those papers you will find funding statements as well as the place the research was conducted and use both to build up a picture of the origins of research in a field.
Afraid I don't know of an easier way not a generic one anyway. Sometimes you just have to follow the right person on twitter who announces trials or studies or be at the right conference. Start with pubmed and the output papers and that will get you started. Then also have a search on the NIH and that might lead you to some links to groups and institutions they fund.
You could look at ClinicalTrials.gov, you can quite easily search for completed, phase 3 trials example.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?aggFilters=phase:3,status:...
Publish or perish is more about status & careerism within academia than any sort of govt forcing function. If you don't publish, you are invisible to your peers and your career stagnates, regardless of the govt funding environment.
It is entirely their fault. If no one agrees to do performative research, the problem will be solved.
The problem is some people prefer an academic lifestyle in exchange for doing performative research.
Yes there are other actors eg politicians demanding performative productivity, but mostly it’s the inmates running the asylum.
Academia is one failed western institution amongst many, and those failures are ultimately directed by the actions of the individuals that comprise those institutions.
> It is entirely their fault. If no one agrees to do performative research, the problem will be solved.
Right, and the prisoner's "dilemma" isn't a real thing; everyone knows it's their own fault for not just all picking the decision that gives them all the best outcome. Every individual within a network effect is obviously responsible for the outcomes the entire system produces.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions, yes.
They're not responsible for the situations that end up encouraging certain actions though, and they shouldn't be blamed for not being able to solve the collective action problem[1]. I'd argue that the only blame that's fair to place on them in situations like this is from direct results of their individual actions, not the propagation of incentives that are beyond their power to change regardless of their own individual decisions.
If you're willing to blame someone for not acting against their own individual interest, doesn't it make more sense for it to be the people who are going out of their way to reward others for acting in that way?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
Na, not buying it.
Evolution creates a situation that encourages all sorts of terrible actions, and the vast majority of people choose to control their animal instincts.
Additionally: the people who encourage the performative research are the people who control grant review. And those people are the same people as the performative researchers.
A bunch of people figured they could make a career doing bs performative research and corrupted the whole system to serve them.
It's not necessarily performative research just because a pop science author wrote a catchy, exaggerated headline about it
This is a fallacy: "If no one agrees to do performative research, the problem will be solved."
It is like saying, if everyone stops subscribing to OnlyFans or liking spicy pics on Instagram, it will go away.
There will always be sycophants willing to do "performative research" or ... other things.
"Performative research" sounds far more NSFW than it has any right to in the context you've placed it.
If everyone stops subscribing to OnlyFans, why will OnlyFans exist?
Why would I want to stop liking spicy pictures though :P
So long as funding is granted to do performative research, it will continue to exist.
But it’s granted by the same people that perform performative research.
Academia is beyond broken.
The bad drove out the good.
Enamelon Toothpaste from the 1990s:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/127083185095
"proven to strengthen tooth enamel" I remember researching the stock and deciding not to buy.
Patents from the 1990s https://patents.justia.com/assignee/enamelon-inc
It seems the company is still around https://www.enamelon.com
What about "Sensodyne Pronamel"? There is usually someone in the comments raving about its effects.
I think usually they rave about Novamin, which, at least in Canada, isn’t in the Pronamel line IIRC but in other Sensodyne branded toothpastes.
_EDIT: “repair and protect”_
This was a good comment thread on which brands or markets had what with regard to hydroxyapatite:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36564190
I can be that someone this time. The ”repair and protect” version has helped my low-level toothache.
I've actually been occasionally using Enamelon because it was recommended by my dentist for sensitivity and I think it actually works.
I'm going to try Boka as recommended above though, it seems like a more updated and modern solution.
Did you tried :D ?
Same feeling here. Dental seems particularly fraught (though maybe I just pay more attention to it out of interest). I know the cycle time between press releases/hype and actual application can be the better part of a decade, so I assume that's coloring my perception too.
re: dental in particular - It seems like enamel regeneration and stem-cell-based tooth replacement have both been in the news year-after-year without applications actually coming to market.
Does anyone know why casein phosphopeptide (Recaldent) hasn't had more success? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9294493/ You can buy the Japanese gum with Recaldent online, but I expected it to be in the gum display in retail shops by now.
Everyone knows that teeth are luxury bones in the US. The market just isn't there for fancy treatments. The ultra-wealthy just get their teeth replaced with perfect veneers anyway.
> The ultra-wealthy just get their teeth replaced with perfect veneers anyway.
Na, that’s the working class turkey teeth crowd.
> stem-cell-based tooth replacement
Really? This sounds more like someone's plan to get grants to research stem cells than someone's plan to repair (or replace) teeth.
We already have a natural ability to grow new teeth that replace existing ones. Everybody does it... once. Where's the research into getting it to happen again?
Theet formation is a very early procces, even before the baby is born.
> Primary (baby) teeth start to form between the sixth and eighth week of prenatal development, and permanent teeth begin to form in the twentieth week.
So it's probably too late for you.
> So it's probably too late for you.
What's the argument here? You don't think I'm going to live for another 8 years?
Adult bones are probably harder, a growing unexpedted theet may be painful, I don't recomend to be the first to try the method.
Some people do have a third set of teeth in there.
Probably a genetic mutation, like the people that has 6 fingers in each hand.
Had to check again. Apparently all humans have them.
There has been a ton of research in the area of re-growing teeth from stem cells. A cursory search-engining will turn up a ton of articles, some going back decades, and many giving the impression that it's close to happening. I've been following it for awhile because I knew I'd be in the market for a new tooth eventually.
Here's an example of one from earlier this year at King's College, London: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/lab-grown-teeth-might-become-an-a...
There have been a lot of research around USAG-1, too [1]:
> Uterine sensitization-associated gene-1 (USAG-1) deficiency leads to enhanced bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling, leading to supernumerary teeth formation.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33579703/
If that could be targeted at a given tooth site (i.e. I don't want to go thru another round of deciduous teeth across my entire mouth) that would be pretty cool. We're each carrying a perfect growth matrix for new teeth, after all.
If it just repeated the process everyone is already familiar with, in which each of your teeth falls out and grows back in one at a time over a period of several years, it would already be a perfect solution to tooth decay and demand would be massive.
A similar approach was reported in 2019,[1] but that produced thinner coatings, and the recovery of the architecture of inner layers of enamel was only partial.
[1]https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9569
While I 100% agree with what you wrote, I'd just add that it does seem in my own dental visits over my lifetime that there have been real advancements, too. But yes, I agree, hard for non-expert to parse.
Seeing SLA 3D printers at my dentist's office was pretty cool. Apparently they use them for a variety of fixturing and jigs, and have a workflow that includes a handheld scanning unit that SLAMs to generate a solid model of the patient's teeth.
I have 4 crowns, 2 done using moulds, 2 using the 3d scanner. Same doc, same office. The moulded ones were ok with some adjustments, but the 3d scanned ones were perfect since day 1. I'm happy with the progress in dentistry.
I'm surprised how many low-hanging fruit issues are still not solved. So many dentists use cold or tap water for their rinse sprayer despite the fact that many people have temperature sensitivity issues with their teeth. Having lukewarm water would be trivial but I've yet to go to an American dentist that does it.
This might be the dental equivalent of the "Groundbreaking New Battery Tech" type of article.
ART with HVGIC has basically solved dental caries since the 80s. But you aren't likely to get it in the US or most western nations because there is a massive industry around drilling and filling with resins and then solving the multitude of problems that such a destructive process creates. Crowns, root canal, periodontal disease etc.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03005...
Isn't ART also destructive? Just that it's done with hand instruments instead of a drill
Also the aspect of shooting in neuro toxins close to the brain when doing these procedures
exact same reaction. I remember hearing about "regrowing teeth through sound waves"... in 2006. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/dentist-engineer-team-up-to-... Can't say I have heard it offered anywhere yet....
A better approach is to monitor FDA updates. When an FDA trial shows positive results for a new treatment and approval for public use appears imminent, that would qualify as news in that regard.
yup here is one from 2007
https://www.technologyreview.com/2007/02/22/272845/regrowing...
As it turns out, this is really hard to do. There are a lot required of teeth: they have to be extremely durable to resist repeated strain of chewing ,stay in the gums, not be rejected by body, etc. It's little surprise progress has been so slow.
or, solid state batteries, graphene, fusion, quantum computers, agi =)
I was expecting to see something along this storyline[0] which seems believable though not palatable.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44922571
It is probably tough getting investment because this is ultimately cosmetic and not something covered by most dental insurance. Existing repair is probably good enough and I’d expect cheaper too.
> I feel like I've been reading this exact same article for the last 15 years.
I was about to comment the same thing, I feel like I've been seeing this talked about since the 90s
- HIV/AIDs
- Cancer
- Tooth regrowth
It feels like it won’t ever be done for some reason
Cancers have had extremely effective new treatments developed for in the last ten years.
Depending on the type of cancer, we now have cures or treatments that stave off death for years.
My wife has a rare type of cancer with not much research thrown at it, and even her type of cancer went from a median time of survival measured in months to several years.
Tooth regrowth is something I was really hoping for. I abused one of my molars. After years of efforts (repeated fillings, a crown) to stave off losing the tooth it finally had to come out last month. Now I'm waiting for the bone graft to "take" before getting an implant. I was hoping I'd waited long enough for tooth regrowth to become "a thing" but I have not.
(Should have taken better care of it when I was younger and not ignored the massive hole that was growing in it. Chalk it up to a bad dental experience as a child and 25+ years of avoiding dentists as a result...)
After a few years of bad mental health, I do have several dental problems, including two badly chipped front teeth. Sadly, my local dentist isn't taking any new patients at the moment so I can't get them looked at even though I now want to. It would be good if I could regrow the teeth but I think it's going to end up being an expensive procedure :/
It would be wonderful if it were someday a routine treatment, but it feels like the technology is perpetually out of reach. If the tech ever does pan out I assume it will be decades until it reaches the masses. It's difficult to be optimistic.
In the same boat as you, maybe less years behind you than I’d like to believe.
Just in case you need someone to, y’know, empathise with you.
I have a lot of people in my life who don’t understand why I don’t just go to the dentist
The anxiety about having actual problems with my tooth eventually overrode the anxiety about going to the dentist and I started going regularly (after a pause of 26 years).
I'm pleased that I found a good dentist and I've been able to overcome my anxiety. I recognize that I'm lucky in this regard.
I was also lucky in that, aside from this one problem tooth, my oral care regimen in my 26 years of not having regular dental care were sufficient to prevent any further issues. I expected to come out of that first checkup with massive problems (even though I'd never had any pain or issues) and I was pleasantly surprised.
All in all I think I'm very lucky. I tried to take care of my teeth on my own, and largely succeeded, but I do wish I'd taken care of this one problem tooth before it was too late.
I was reading your comment just as I was sat in the dentist office paying for my partner’s kid long due treatment. She was afraid of dentists and neglected treatment for too long but I took her to the same superb (and expensive) dentist I use for my own kids and she was happy and had everything done. Your comment reminded me why I do it. Thank you.
Similar story for me. My wife's dentist went up being mine, on her recommendation. That helped me tremendously with my anxiety.
While a cure remains elusive, HIV treatment is now extremely effective. Antiretroviral shots can keep people symptom free indefinitely.
Cancer treatment varies by type of cancer but many have dramatically improved outcomes.
I am confused by this comment about HIV/AIDS. Is it cynical? Are you confused why we have not "cured" HIV? I grew up during the AIDS Crisis. It was awful. People were dropping like flies. Today, you can be "technically" HIV positive, but test negative, give birth to HIV-negative children, and have unprotected sex (and not infect your partner). As far as I am concerned, the battle has been won. It is a miracle in my eyes.
HIV meds have a slew unpleasant but tolerable (certainly far superior to HIV itself) side effects, imo the battle isn't "won" until the treatment is entirely inconsequential.
That said, the progress has indeed been miraculous. A great example of the capabilities modern medicine.
i thought the first two have had huge improvements in the last decade?
HIV has become a manageable disease in my lifetime. The main issue today is access to medication as I understand it.
The first widespread cure for HIV could be in children - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44765981 - August 2025
One-and-done HIV protection in infants - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736988 - July 2025 (First author of the paper even commented here at the time: "labanimalster - First author here. We solved a 30-year problem in gene therapy by leveraging neonatal immune tolerance. A single AAV vector injection encoding HIV antibodies achieved 89% success in newborns vs 33% in 2-year-olds, with protection lasting through adolescence. This could transform HIV prevention in regions where maintaining regular medical care is challenging. Happy to answer questions about the science or implications.")
US FDA approves Gilead's twice-yearly injection [lenacapavir] for HIV prevention - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44312729 - June 2025
it might be slow exponential thing, 60 years of low to medium improvements in cancer, and hopefully suddenly a few big cracks to turn it into a chronic liveable condition (or maybe cure it).
there are more articles about advanced tumors being shrunk to nothing than before (based on my personal monitoring)
HIV prevention has been reduced to a twice a year shot given mainly to MSM. It's pretty damn close to the original goal of a vaccine.
+ Male birth control
+ Alzheimer’s cure
+ Hair regrowth
Cancer immunotherapy . Only works in a handful of cases
+ weight loss pills
...they were persistent vaporware or scams, then suddenly they were real and everywhere. Hopefully that happens for the others too?
> + weight loss pills
They've had those for decades. It's called meth.
Coffee and cigarettes for a safer but less effective solution.
Cigarettes are no way safer than small doses of amphetamines. Check where the name "Ritalin" came from!
Have we solved anything? /s
Compared to the 1980s, HIV is a chronic manageable disease that does not even reduce your quality of life.
Plenty of cancers have become manageable with the advent of immunological treatments.
Tooth regrowth seems to be the most complicated of those three, which isn't even surprising, given that it is basically organ regeneration.
HIV/Aids have made huge progress and so did cancer. Also "cancer" isn't a single disease, they're quite different.
- hair regrowth
I find it interesting that we are closer to regrowing teeth than hair. At least there was human clinical test for TRG-035. Is it just cause hair transplant is "good enough" stopgap solution?
I think it's more that fixing teeth is largely about replicating a specific material with one-off procedures, whereas fixing hair is all about controlling a complex never-ending process that is linked to all sorts of factors.
Also, everyone has teeth issues, whereas hair issues are mostly limited to a subsection of the population (older males, and not even all of them).
> subsection of the population (older males, and not even all of them)
Those men will pay lot of money to get back their hair though.
If I not mistaken it was Bill Gates who said more money is spent in hair regrowth research compared to vaccine to prevent diseases like malaria which kills thousand of people.
>> I feel like I've been reading this exact same article for the last 15 years..
You must be new
I think 30-40 years at this point. Same thing with regrowing teeth.
I would say, maybe look at medical studies from the opposite end, epidemiological studies look at factors that reduce mortality/morbidity. Granted, it's less flashy, basically vaccines, alcohol/tobacco reduction, increase in active lifestyle, statins/ace inhibitors, monoclonals/oncology fanciness. although someone who actually is an MPH can probably correct me.
on the neuroscience side, off the top of my head, the most impactful things have been better anticoagulants and preventive care for stroke, monoclonal abs for autoimmune diseases like MS/myasthenia, , certain stereotactic brain surgeries, and such. But considering what ails most people, the overall population effect probably is minuscule compared to say better crash safety in automobiles.
Wait until you read that the scientific evidence for flossing doesn't really confirm the promised benefits.
Fortunately there doesn't seem to be any harm from flossing. At least from my anecdotal experience there are positive bad breath ramifications. (I've also been conditioned, by flossing regularly, to feel like my mouth is "cleaner" after flossing, to the point that it feels bad if I don't.)
Quite possible regular flossing causes microplastic contamination in the gums which quite readily then enters the bloodstream.
Many people are not honest about how much they floss, and those who do often don't floss correctly. We have a well understood mechanism for how tooth decay and gingivitis happen, and it's clear clinically that flossing can address these more effectively than brushing alone can. Furthermore, the subjective reduction in bad breath means harmful oral bacteria are reduced, which could have benefits beyond oral health.
This is the key issue. There is zero doubt whatsoever that flossing is essential, and the fact that the empirical evidence is equivocal shows the limitations of science to prove even the most obvious things.
I do floss, but I genuinely don't see that this is obvious. You can do a lot of damage with mechanical force, to both teeth and gums! Starting a flossing regimen after not having one tends to cause pain--isn't that a signal to stop? etc.
Furthermore, correlation is not causation and it could well be the case that flossing is associated with better outcomes without causing it. For example, people who can afford to go to the dentist regularly are therefore regularly told to floss. People who care about dental health in general probably floss more, but also may be doing other things, consciously or unconsciously, to improve outcomes. Gut (and perhaps mouth) bacteria have behavioral effects; perhaps flossing is caused by having healthy mouth bacteria!
(at least one study says mouthwash is better than floss. That seems obvious to me! liquids are smaller than floss.)
Actually, recent research suggests daily mouthwash use, especially alcohol-based and antimicrobial formulas, carries underappreciated risks (e.g., Microbiome disruption kills beneficial oral bacteria that help regulate blood pressure while promoting harmful strains linked to gum disease and certain cancers [oral, esophageal, colorectal]; Long-term alcohol-based mouthwash use is associated a with 40-60% increased risk of oral/pharyngeal cancers, with risk scaling by frequency and duration; Chlorhexidine reduces nitrate-reducing bacteria, potentially raising blood pressure and increasing prediabetes/diabetes risk even in healthy users; Some formulas actually increase acidic bacteria that lower salivary pH, promoting tooth demineralization and staining).
In other words, mouthwash offers short-term hygiene benefits but should probably not be used daily unless medically indicated. The oral microbiome matters more than we thought, and indiscriminately nuking it has downstream effects.
Whoa! Any references?
Do you have consistent gaps between all your teeth, and/or other conditions like strong enamel, or a good diet? If so, congratulations - flossing might not do much for you. But it's ridiculous to suggest that - if you don't floss and get food stuck between your teeth for days on end - that doesn't have a negative effect. Arguments about correlation/causation be damned.
> Starting a flossing regimen after not having one tends to cause pain--isn't that a signal to stop?
Moderate exercise after not exercising for a while causes pain - is that a signal to stop?
Any chance you would be willing to summarize the research or provide information on some relevant studies? I've always been skeptical about flossing and would like to learn more.
The wikipedia article [1] suggests that there is no strong evidence for flossing being a good thing. However, that might just be because experts have not updated the article.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_floss#Efficacy
enjoy https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Meta-analysis suggests flossing doesn't affect tooth decay. But it does seem to prevent gum disease.
I hear so many counter-logical ideas proposed with "scientific evidence". Poorly designed studies and P-Hacking has ruined the publics trust in science. I highly doubt flossing is a net negative for almost anyone.
tbf, it does require a technique otherwise you risk just pushing plaque underneath your gums
Where? Source please?
Wait what? Please share
[dead]
There was a period where my dentist would always ask do you floss in a check-up. They haven't asked for years at this point.
Any thoughts on how this might be different from existing products like GC Tooth Mousse (CPP-ACP-based, recommended by our children's dentist)?
A paper from 2011 on the topic:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9374843/
EDIT: https://archive.is/MYBSe
Site is down, not in archive.org or archive.today. This Yandex Cache link worked for me: https://yandexwebcache.net/yandbtm?fmode=inject&tm=176237557...
Doesn't xylitol gum do the same thing? Re-mineralize teeth?
Xylitol reduces cavity‑causing bacteria and raises salivary flow, which can increase calcium and phosphate availability. That environment supports natural remineralisation and boosts the effect of fluoride or hydroxyapatite products, but xylitol itself doesn’t deposit minerals into enamel.
For actual mineral replacement, look to fluoride toothpaste/varnish, casein phosphopeptide‑amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP‑ACP), or nano‑hydroxyapatite formulations; xylitol gum is a useful adjunct.
[dead]
Coincidentally, there recently was a very similar story from another UK university, where they used a substance found in hair to make a new "tooth repair" toothpaste:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44922571
If anyone's a dentist or is close to one, I'd love to know something I haven't found a satisfactory answer for online: if the vast majority of cavities were "magically" cured over the next few years, what impact would that have on the finances of your practice?
I'm not suggesting there's a conscious conspiracy or anything malicious. But I observe that incentives are weirdly aligned. I wonder what this kind of thing would do to a very large industry if all of a sudden some percentage of business disappeared. Is it a large percentage? Would they pivot to more preventative medicine? Would patients adopt a longer duration between checkups?
I’m a dentist. If cavities vanished tomorrow, it would definitely change things, but not as much as you might guess. Cavities and crowns make up a decent slice of what most general practices do, but there’s still gum disease, cracked teeth, teeth wear, implants, bite issues, cosmetic work, and so on. A lot of what keeps people coming in isn’t just sugar, although from the outside I understand why it might look like sugar is the whole game.
Financially, there’d be a short-term hit for offices that rely heavily on fillings, but the field would adjust. Most of us would focus more on prevention, maintenance, and elective care. Dentistry has already been slowly shifting that direction for years with better materials, scanners, and aligners.
So if everyone suddenly stopped getting cavities, I’d still have plenty to do. It would just look a little different.
But if you don't have cavities, doesn't that mean that there's going to be now reduced need for not just fillings, but down the road also crowns, root canals, implants, etc (at least caused by tooth deterioration that starts as cavities)?
I think there would just be fewer dentists. It's like asking what would happen to the finances of weight loss clinics if magically Americans weren't as obese.
I will say my dentists always try to convince me to floss more often, regardless of any economic benefit they might have for me to disregard my teeth.
I also would imagine cleanings aren't where the big money is in the profession, but like you would be interested to hear from actual dentists.
Teeth are still susceptible to mechanical wear, and as life expectancy is inching towards 90 (at least among wealthier people in wealthier countries), dentists will have a lot of work to do anyway.
The societal standard matters more than raw incidence of cavities etc. Three generations ago, it was considered absolutely normal to have dentures in your fifties. Nowadays, middle class people tend to die with (heavily fixed, but still their) teeth and some implants in their mouths.
Not a dentist, but my read of the situation is that dentists generally are not very excited about doing fillings and there's a push towards getting into more complex procedures like root canals, invisalign and implants. It's probably partly due to wanting to upskill and increase your repertoire and partly due to the margins. The margins with these procedures can be an order of magnitude more than that of fillings, especially anything that is supplied by a big brand.
I like how you ask explicitly for replies from dentists and then most of the answers you get are people saying they aren't dentists but still want to give their two cents anyway.
Not a dentist but I definitely couldn't see it going away. Also curious to hear a more knowledgeable opinion.
There will always be accidents and need of non-cavity repairs. As a kid I broke a healthy tooth eating Doritos. It didn't make sense to my dentist either. I've broken a less healthy (but repaired) tooth on a candy coated peanut, and one a Twizzler Nib.
I grind my teeth, so everything is being worn and torn at a higher rate. The mouth guard won't generate itself.
Hate to say it, but if I thought my teeth would stick around longer, I'd probably be more likely to seek cosmetic fixes. I'm apparently really hard on them or something.
Well until this stuff comes out I'll keep using smuggled FDA-unapproved Novamin toothpaste. Atonement for my neglect
How does NovaMin / calcium sodium phosphosilicate compare to toothpaste with nanohydroxyapatite in it?
It occludes dentinal tubules, helping reduce dentin hypersensitivity. It's a tooth-desensitizing agent helping people who are for example, very sensitive to very cold/hot temperature in their mouth.
There is evidence that it can foster enamel/dentin mineral gain, but head to head studies shows that it's comparable to regular fluoride toothpaste and not superior. E.g. In a randomized in-situ trial (Caries Research, 2017), adding 5% NovaMin to a 927-ppm SMFP toothpaste did not improve remineralization outcomes vs the same fluoride formula without NovaMin.
Also, you can find NovaMin in the US (e.g., NUPRO Sensodyne Prophylaxis Paste with NovaMin).
I don't know if this is everyone's experience, but you get a distinct feeling of smoothness after using it, unlike any other toothpaste. Since NovaMin reacts with saliva to remineralize the tooth you'd imagine it's a stronger bond than directly filling up crevices with nanohydroxyapatite, and studies seem to [slightly] confirm that.
anecdotal experience: my wife had somewhat botched dental filling proceedure. it probably damaged her teeth in some way and it became very sensitive for any fluids or foods. they tried to redo it, but it only increased sensitivity further.
i gave her apagard renamel (with nanohydroxyapatite ). after a few days sensitivity went down and after a few weeks it completely disappeared
PS. before apagard she used day to day novamin toothpaste. it didn't help
Same here. My dentist was impressed after a year of me using it.
Sensodyne?
I just learned about this 5 mins ago and did some basic research. Here's what I found:
- Sensodyne Repair and Protect contains 'NovaMin' (possibly only in some markets; check the ingredients!)
- NovaMin is the brand name for calcium sodium phosphosilicate
- It reacts with saliva to form a physical layer of hydroxyapatite on your teeth
- This layer blocks the tubules that trigger pain from temperature and such
- It also supports remineralization (how exactly?)
You have to get the European version of Sensodyne Repair and Protect to get NovaMin. It's not in the US formulation.
as the sibling comment notes, the Canadian version also has it:
https://www.jeancoutu.com/en/shop/categories/personal-care/o...
https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/Sensodyne-Repair-Protect-Sensit...
Looks like you can get the versions with NovaMin in the US on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Sensodyne-Protect-Toothpaste-powered-...
Note the recent spate of 1 star reviews angry that what they received is not the Novamin version.
The German version also seems to have stannous fluoride instead of NovaMin, like in the US.
Mine says "NovaMin" right on the front. There are multiple types of Sensodyne.
Btw, what really drives me crazy is that Elmex sells multiple different sorts of tooth paste with the colors green and violett, each. How can a company confuse their customers so much that they buy a tooth whitener paste instead of a remineralizing one? Did the mistake twice...
The nova min version is called Clinical Repair in Germany
Thanks!
Stannous fluoride works well for me, how does it compare to NovaMin?
Please share your experience if you've tried both.
Can anyone explain why people in the USA aren’t allowed to buy this easily?
TLDR: regulations
The toothpaste maker wants to claim something like "Novamin is useful". In the EU this is treated as for cosmetics, so relatively low bar to clear. In the US this is treated as pharmaceutical, so a high bar to clear. The manufacturer has decided that passing that bar is not financially sensible for them.
The Canadian version I just bought also seems to have 5% NovaMin.
Would you know where to get NovaMin mouthwash?
hydroxyapatite is a mineral like your tooth, that's how it supports remineralization.
It's actually great stuff and works wonders for tooth sensitivity above and beyond fluoride shellac. I also order it from the more civilized world.
BioMin is available in the US and is similar, but I don't find it works better and I don't like that it doesn't have fluoride. (I live in an area without fluoride in the water)
Biomin F does have fluoride, but you need to import it.
Due to GSKs patents only repair and protect outside of the US has novamin in it.
You can buy it from overseas.
Because it keeps coming up there is an anti-Novamin crowd that says it’s useless and Biomin is the true re-enamelizer.
I used BioMin F for about a year, and I think it did something, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to evaluate its effectiveness.
Unfortunately it isn't actually available where I live (US), and I had to buy it from Canada... from a shop that hasn't had stock for more than a year now. I've tried ordering from other countries, but haven't found anyone else who will ship to the US.
I've tried the "BioMin Restore" toothpaste that is available in the US, and I don't feel like it's doing much of anything, but... again, not sure I'm qualified to evaluate.
If you have sensitive teeth both nHAP and novamin toothpastes help a lot there. I've tried both. nHAP is easier to get in the USA, there are several brands, for some reason some go nuts over the imported ones from Japan.
If you're going to use nHAP, get Apaguard from Japan. Their nHAP is rod shaped, not jagged. They were the first to make rod shaped nHAP and have been doing it for decades. It's not a great idea to introduce cheap/jagged nHAP into your mouth. Sharp nanoparticles tend to cause cancer.
Interesting. A very rudimentary web search begins suggesting that Biomin is the more suspicious of the two. It has a very weird Internet footprint of being this somewhat obscure-looking expensive "Health" product. I really can't find any recognizable sources on the product name. Maybe the obscurity is part of the exotic allure for some?
I used to use sensodyne for cold-sensitive teeth, but they changed ingredients to include something I’m now allergic to. Or I recently developed an allergy to whatever their unchanged ingredients are.
I have yet to find a replacement for it.
nanohydroxyapatite helps a lot with sensitive teeth, you can even find some brands that also have fluoride in it if you're worried about the nonfluroide versions
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7068624
I'm not sure what the takeaway is here? If I read that correctly, they only found one study and just reported their results? Is that because there are literally no studies on this worldwide? I find that very hard to believe.
A systematic review like this can be helpful, in that it identifies where there are gaps in the literature, and prevents hype - if some studies show evidence of effect, and others do not, even if there are only a few published studies then we know somthing new about the totality of the literature on the subject.
That said, this particular systematic review has a couple of issues (e.g. I can't find the precise inclusion / exclusion criteria, nor can I find that it has been pre-registered on Prospero or another database).
I have written a few systematic reviews where there is very little data already availabe, and we use them to explain to funders why we need to do further research on a given topic.
I know there's value to recording the selection process and all that but it's a little funny to have a review that ends up only including one study: at that point just give me a link, not a paper.
Admittedly it's possible I've been bamboozled
As someone with low maintenance teeth how far has dental tech procedures improved in last 30 years? Feels dental hygienist are all using tools that haven't changed in decades.
My dental practice has only one significant improvement that I’ve noticed in the last 30 years, which is to use a sonic scaler to remove plaque instead of manual scraping with an implement. Somebody in the field would certainly be able to provide a better and more informative answer.
To a normal human, not at all
I ask my dentist about this cause it keeps appearing.
He’s a pretty modern dentist I think. He has no idea about it.
How many of these have we heard about over the years and yet … none ever come to market.
You know it's weird how we don't have a general "healing" gel yet..
Pretty sure I get re-targeted by ads for various versions of this for weeks on end after I do a single google search for a new toothpaste.
Usually the safety profiles of those companies are very very very bad, but probably reference very good research.
Is this going to be another Theodent?
For the uninitiated, Theodent is a $100/tube toothpaste made with the chocolate extract theobromine, instead of fluoride, based on a similar paper quite a while back.
one of my front tooth was chipped years ago while playing around and some days ago i was feeling sensitive in that tooth i take very good care of my teeth, when i visited dentist he said this tooth will die sooner or later because of trauma it endured the nerves will slowly die and we eventually have to do root canal. i was very disappointed to know that there is nothing i can do to keep that tooth alive
Get a second opinion
well most of research i did online and the numerous videos i watched about when root canal is necessary tell this as cases that when tooth endured trauma it will slowly die it may take upto 10 years in this case nothing can be done to save tooth
there maybe some experimental approach that i dont know of that may save or heal tooth do you know any?
When i was a kid another kid stood up into my jaw, slamming my top and bottom teeth together in a weird way. My top two front teeth were basically split in half. They reconstructed those broken-off portions with porcelain or whatever and they’ve never needed to do anything else.
If it helps, I bashed my face into a step when I was like 10, cracking one front tooth and traumatizing the other. Neither tooth has needed a root canal. I get the chipped one repaired every ~10 years or so. The other is discolored.
Screw enamel; man-made materials are better.
If you ever get into any serious money, forget cars or houses: have your teeth ripped out and replaced with artificial ones.
This is horrible advice. Do everything you can to keep your original teeth, even partially with a crown is better than a post or dentures. Nothing will perform as good, and the side effects of dentures range from pain to liquid diet if/when your gums can't support them.
An artificial crown may be better, but not the roots. Natural teeth are fixed in the jaw in a very ingenious way that is durable and somewhat flexible at the same time. Not so with implants; the metal fuses with the bone in a hard way and transmits all the shocks fully into the jaw.
I wonder whether there is any research into dental implant posts which incorporate flexibility: like some kind of bushing, or spring.
...
Doh, yeah: TSA! Titanium Shock Absorber:
https://bonecare.be/en/
So this entire subthread about implanted teeth rigidly connected to the bone is about mainstream technology, not the state of the art.
Using gold as the core would help but of course would be somewhat expensive.
I don't know what you mean by "core", but using it as a material in the center of an implanted post, such that another material faces the bone, seems like cost for no benefit.
And gold is not a good bone-facing material, because bone doesn't fuse with it.
Titanium is favored for implants because it supports osseointegration.
What are the disadvantages of having all the shocks go fully into the jaw?
Depending on the location, state of the bone and other parameters, anything from mild discomfort to catastrophic failure of the implant and a jaw fracture.
I have four implants, two in my lower jaw, two in my upper jaw. My lower jaw is basically stone, an extremely hard bone even by usual lower jaw standards; the dentists (plural, as one was unable to finish the job) drilling into it destroyed a few drilling bits doing so. I have never had any problems with the lower jaw implants. That bone can take almost anything in stride.
My upper jaw, on the other hand ... very delicate, just enough bone left for the implants to work, and I learnt to be careful about biting into anything harder with them.
Discomfort and pain, I would assume.
I wouldn't be surprised if this can, over time, also cause damage to your jaw, and put extra stress on your jaw muscles.
It’s like having a car with no shock absorbers.
My dad did that a couple of decades ago (we nicknamed him Bionic Mouth), and now his body is rejecting almost all of it, and he has to get even more advanced and expensive stuff to replace it (on a fixed retirement income to boot).
That sounds like that movie "the breast men"
These doctors pioneered silicone breast implants.
Eventually side effects happened, and they tried to prevent those patients from coming forward.
Later, it all came out... and all the patients just came back to them and paid for breast upgrades to the next generation saline implants.
Wouldn't you rather reapply a coating that allows the base to regrow, than have to constant get them ground out and replaced as they accumulated small damage? Growth sounds way better than static existence.
Cribbins' dentures would beg to differ.
[dead]
I just went down a rabbit hole researching a toothpaste that's giving me constant ads. I went looking for reviews and ended up posting a comment on /r/PeriodontalDisease - https://old.reddit.com/r/PeriodontalDisease/comments/1bcna04...
TL;DR: EDTA is the magic ingredient that will annihilate the disease-causing biofilm on your teeth & gums, especially when you fund your own studies and spend the rest of your money made from your overpriced toothpaste gel on marketing.
Just brush and floss 2x a day, and chew gum if you like to.
Sounds like...Novamin? That good stuff we used to have but is now not legal in the US but available to other countries.
Hmm.
Interesting. We have a Novamin-containg toothpaste in Australia, but you have to hunt it down.
Poorly designed studies, materials proposed without insight into ramifications and manufacturing, and P-Hacking has ruined the publics trust in science. I blatantly just ignore any headline like this now. Can't trust science anymore.... sad. How many new "cancer cures" have been posted to Reddit and HN over the last decade that never came to fruition.
Not to say doing the science and studying to find new approaches is not beneficial. I just think we need to reconsider how we communicate new research. Its like how CEOs hype up AI products at this point. "This will change everything ..... potentially maybe in twenty years (omitted)"
Is it Fuji 9?
Bob Mortimer will know
https://youtu.be/L1JR-9Z5ORE?si=6f4r6hu-_WoVBlsL
_Fine,_ I will rewatch 2 hours of Bob Mortimer clips of Would I Lie to You? instead of doing real work.
I’m so very glad someone got the reference. What joy I get from watching Mortimer in action.
[flagged]
[flagged]
If you're going to post AI slop, please read the room first.