First law of dentistry: Any innovation that does not increase dentist margin, will not reach market.
To expand on this argument. I think even medical health care is more open to innovation that mainly benefits consumer health. Doctors are kind of oblivious of the cost of procedures. This has a host of other problems, but at least innovation and health outcomes are aligned (and less aligned with cost). Dentists are massively private equity owned where I live. Bottom line is everything. You notice that where you’re in the chair. Six minute procedures (the billing time) always take seven. Kids are state insured and always get upsold to whatever procedure is fashionable (or should I say: has the highest margin). I have a strong feeling innovations are swallowed up and shelved in this sector. It makes sense for the PE to kill innovation once you have a market cornered.
The only thing this anti market rant (not my usual spiel) does not have is an explanation for how PE coordinates the suppression of innovation. I should look into the owners of the parties that deliver the dentist supplies and machinery. That would be the best way to corner a market, by owning the supply chain as well.
"The Department of Health and Human Services is directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make new recommendations on the addition of fluoride to U.S. water sources. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has blamed the fluoridation of water for a number of health problems."
Despite the headline, this is not a toothbrush. This is a "toothbrush-shaped ultrasound transducer". Mind you, I don't know why this wouldn't "increase dentist margin". This is an analysis tool that makes dentistry easier (just like dental X-rays).
I would not be too sure of this with current administration upheaval. The health system is broken in bad and good ways now. If you build it, it can succeed much to the chagrin of well paid dental 'experts'
I understand the negative outlook, but consider that this invention, being less-invasive, could be a draw to some patients. With the saturation of dental offices, some are trying to position themselves as higher-end "spas" with gentle-touch services and/or for people with sensory issues. So it's not just margin, it can also be market-share oriented.
I am a big believer in this. Dentistry is one of the largest grifts in modern medicine, I would put it up there with Chiropractors. Go see 5 dentists and you will get 5 wildly different opinions. I am certain there are good ones out there but it’s way too hard to evaluate.
Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
In Finland there is a profession called dental hygienist, whom I visit once a year. They clean up my teeth with an ultrasound device since many years, removing tartar.
OT: Why is 2 minutes still the recommended time to brush your teeth for (by the ADA)?
Lets say the baseline is 100 vibrations or brushes (or swipes) per minute for a manual toothbrush.
If an electric toothbrush vibrates 8000 times per minute (or any other measurable metric), then shouldn't the amount of time you need to brush for be lowered?
Seems like the whole brush your teeth for 2 minutes was just a very general guideline but was never updated to be very scientific since the introduction of electric toothbrushes.
Also, can we have electric toothbrushes advertise vibrations per minute? or some other metric like that?
It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker.
This sounds cool, my dentist is probably even cool enough to buy one when it's fda approved, but like the "wave form analysis" device they bought this year, it will only be used for specialist purposes and can't be used to replace x rays, or in this case periodontal proving, and almost entirely because of the slow moving insurance industry. (I even asked how much I could pay cash to replace x rays, because fuck radiation, the answer was we have to x ray you)
20 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 46.7 ms ] threadTo expand on this argument. I think even medical health care is more open to innovation that mainly benefits consumer health. Doctors are kind of oblivious of the cost of procedures. This has a host of other problems, but at least innovation and health outcomes are aligned (and less aligned with cost). Dentists are massively private equity owned where I live. Bottom line is everything. You notice that where you’re in the chair. Six minute procedures (the billing time) always take seven. Kids are state insured and always get upsold to whatever procedure is fashionable (or should I say: has the highest margin). I have a strong feeling innovations are swallowed up and shelved in this sector. It makes sense for the PE to kill innovation once you have a market cornered.
The only thing this anti market rant (not my usual spiel) does not have is an explanation for how PE coordinates the suppression of innovation. I should look into the owners of the parties that deliver the dentist supplies and machinery. That would be the best way to corner a market, by owning the supply chain as well.
> toothpaste is usually self-administered haha
very funny. this is a toothbrush, unless you have someone brush your teeth it is always self administered
I mean, that's under attack now.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/10/g-s1-59452/hhs-rfk-fluoride-d...
"The Department of Health and Human Services is directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make new recommendations on the addition of fluoride to U.S. water sources. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has blamed the fluoridation of water for a number of health problems."
i dont see why it couldnt reach the market
Unlike other areas of medicine it’s also one of those frustrating areas because there are interesting devices, pastes and tools that should be easy to purchase but are locked behind the gates of a prescription.
I would not call it exactly painless though.
If an electric toothbrush vibrates 8000 times per minute (or any other measurable metric), then shouldn't the amount of time you need to brush for be lowered?
Seems like the whole brush your teeth for 2 minutes was just a very general guideline but was never updated to be very scientific since the introduction of electric toothbrushes.
Also, can we have electric toothbrushes advertise vibrations per minute? or some other metric like that?
It seems like over the years they get weaker and weaker.