7

Quote from healthcare.utah.edu, emphasis mine:

Interviewer:

It seems like when you go down the toothpaste aisle now, you're starting to see more and more natural options and a lot of those have no fluoride in them. Are those toothpastes effective?

Dr. Okano:

In terms of prevention of tooth decay, no. The only benefit that you'll gain is a fresher mouth with the natural toothpaste, but you will not receive any benefit against tooth decay if it doesn't have fluoride within it.

Interviewer:

So the act of just cleaning your teeth at the end of the day, scrubbing them with a brush, that doesn't prevent tooth decay? You need to have fluoride?

Dr. Okano:

You certainly need to brush your teeth. The question is, do you need toothpaste to clean your teeth?

Interviewer:

Okay.

Dr. Okano:

You really do not need toothpaste to remove the dental plaque from your teeth. Purely the mechanical action of the toothbrush bristles and your dental floss disrupts the dental plaque that ultimately leads to tooth decay and gum disease. So you really don't need toothpaste. Now, toothpaste does have some benefits. Some will have some whitening agents for those who want whiter teeth with associated concerns, though, with abrasiveness, and sensitivity considerations. You would also have a fresher feeling mouth. But as far as removing the causative factors for tooth decay and gum disease, the toothpaste itself is not as important as purely the mechanical action of your toothbrush and your dental floss.

In other words, he says that non-fluoridated toothpaste is no more effective in tooth decay prevention than mere mechanical brushing. Is this statement true?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • see also https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13550/do-we-need-to-brush-our-teeth/17665#17665 – GEdgar Apr 24 '18 at 23:47
  • We have a rule that only widely-held beliefs are in scope for this site (or at least, claims made by notable people and organisations that are widely seen). Please [provide some references](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/882/what-are-the-attributes-of-a-good-question/883#883) to places where this claim is being made. – Oddthinking Apr 25 '18 at 00:29
  • 1
    In particular, this is confusing because the (non-notable claim) that fluoride toothpastes are no longer recommended is highly dubious. We should remove that as a distraction. – Oddthinking Apr 25 '18 at 00:30
  • 1
    Instead, find some places where people (e.g. manufacturers?) talk about the [alleged] benefits of non-fluoridated toothpastes (versus nothing, not versus fluoridated ones), so we can address those particular claims. e.g. Do they actually say it helps reduce dental caries, or do they say it reduces enamel wear, or that the peroxide bleaches the teeth for better appearances or do they say the froth makes brushing more fun so you do it longer? – Oddthinking Apr 25 '18 at 00:33
  • Dr. David Okano of Utah university: "In terms of prevention of tooth decay, no. The only benefit that you'll gain is a fresher mouth with the natural toothpaste, but you will not receive any benefit against tooth decay if it doesn't have fluoride within it." https://healthcare.utah.edu/the-scope/shows.php?shows=0_bfiah6xp –  Apr 25 '18 at 05:39
  • > "the (non-notable claim) that fluoride toothpastes are no longer recommended is highly dubious" -- I suppose the validity of the claim is location-dependent: areas with enough fluoride from other sources should not need the extra amount from toothpaste. In this case the location is Prague. But this is merely guessing. –  Apr 25 '18 at 05:51
  • I agree with Oddthinking. The title, the body of the question, and the statements by Dr. Okano do not really match to form a consistent, precise question. The answer to the title would be "no", a complete answer to the body would include raised eyebrows regarding the (unsourced) claim that fluoridated toothpastes are no longer recommended as the default, and Dr. Okano explains rather clearly both the "no" to the title question and the benefits of fluoridated toothpaste, so... – DevSolar Apr 25 '18 at 07:32
  • Thank you for your feedback. I have reformulated the body of the question. –  Apr 25 '18 at 07:56
  • I am sorry, but the claim is.now about fluoridated toothpaste. No.one is saying anything about unfluoridated ones. Perhaps quote Okano instead? – Oddthinking Apr 25 '18 at 09:24
  • I've further distilled the question and quoted Dr. Okano. –  Apr 25 '18 at 10:26
  • "Not as important" doesn't mean "unimportant". Putting a lump of toothpaste in your mouth is not going to do as good of a job as brushing with a bare brush, but putting toothpaste on your brush and then brushing will be a significant improvement over the brush alone. – Daniel R Hicks Apr 25 '18 at 11:56
  • @DanielRHicks I am not saying that "not as important" means "unimportant". Please read the last paragraph of the question. –  Apr 25 '18 at 12:10
  • You read it first. It's carefully worded to convey one meaning while saying something else. – Daniel R Hicks Apr 25 '18 at 12:41
  • @DanielRHicks Dr. Okano: "The only benefit that you'll gain is a fresher mouth with the natural toothpaste, but **you will not receive any benefit against tooth decay if it doesn't have fluoride within it**." –  Apr 25 '18 at 12:51
  • 2
    "He argues that non-fluoridated toothpaste is not as effective in tooth decay prevention than mere mechanical brushing." - if you mean brushing + non-fluoridated toothpaste < plain brushing, no, he's not saying that. He's saying that the brushing is the main factor when your remove fluoride from the equation, and that the paste does not add any benefit, in that scenario. That's different than saying it detracts. – PoloHoleSet Apr 25 '18 at 16:44
  • For what it's worth, I've heard this claim years ago from a different source: That unflouridated toothpaste gives you no particular health benefit over the simple mechanical act of brushing. – Ask About Monica Apr 25 '18 at 16:51
  • Thank you for fixing the question. It is a lot better now. – Oddthinking Apr 26 '18 at 01:43
  • 2
    To add some additional complexity: There is probably a big difference between the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste in countries where the water is already fluoridated, and countries where that is not the case. I have heard it claimed that in countries with fluoridated water the additional fluoride in toothpaste has no effect at all. – DocM Apr 26 '18 at 10:47
  • Anecdote: I find that brushing my teeth with a mild liquid soap and possibly some baking soda cleans them far more effectively than just brushing them with water, as does brushing them with toothpaste (fluoride or not). So I doubt Dr. Okano's implication that brushing alone is as effective at "removing the causative factors for tooth decay and gum disease" as is brushing with a cleaning agent. But that assertion is about removing causative factors, not the actual impact on tooth decay itself, which could be different. – phoog Apr 30 '18 at 21:46

0 Answers0