• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Act Restoring Mouthwash

Overman

Master Poster
Overman
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
2,629
Linky

Saw the commericial for this quite a bit during football this weekend....Something just doesn't smell right about how they claim that it restores weakened spots in your teeth...does anyone have the science behind this down, and can you explain it to me?
 
This was in their FAQ:
How Does Fluoride Work?
A tooth surface may become weakened by decay. This decay is usually caused by acids released by bacteria found in plaque. Fluoride then absorbs into the weakened tooth surface to rebuild the enamel. Amazingly, the new tooth material created by this rebuilding process is more durable than the original.
Click to expand...

It looks like they are just repackaging some basic dental truths, viz. that fluoride restores tooth enamel. They have alcohol free products, so kids can use it without too much bother or being put off by the taste. That may be the gimmick.

The only active ingredient that I can see is fluoride, so, there's nothing new here. I am pretty sure 'restores weakened spots in your teeth' is a supportable statement, if the ingredient responsible is fluoride.
 
Gosh darn marketing gimmicks.

A rose by any other name is a rose.
 
I didn't know that fluoride could have that effect. I always thought that it was absorbed into a child's system and helped during initial growth of the tooth. And that fluoride tooth paste acted because small amounts of the fluoride seep down a childs throat while brushing, plus possible absorption into the blood stream through the lining of the mouth.

I always though that the body makes enamel only during the initial growth of the tooth, waaaay under the gum, in childhood.

Hmmm, to 'heal' teeth, fluoride would have to act as a catalyst to make enamel out of whatever is floating around the mouth. hmmmm... teeth 'stem cells' maybe?

Next, will they be telling us that you can 'feed' hair externally too. Maybe if they start putting fluoride into shampoos and rinses?
 
casebro said:
I didn't know that fluoride could have that effect. I always thought that it was absorbed into a child's system and helped during initial growth of the tooth. And that fluoride tooth paste acted because small amounts of the fluoride seep down a childs throat while brushing, plus possible absorption into the blood stream through the lining of the mouth.
Click to expand...

I always thought it simply replaced hydroxide ions in the surface enamel, transforming Ca5(PO4)3(OH) into Ca5(PO4)3F. Since fluoride is a much weaker base than hydroxide, fluoroapatite is a lot less sensitive to acids than hydroxyapatite, and thus less likely to corrode.
 
OK, I wiki'ed stannous fluoride. Came up with one important little nugget:

"Used in combination with abrasives that contain calcium, sodium fluoride is ineffective", but stannous flouride is still effective. So maybe the gist of their ad is that they have gone back to the original fluoride, the stannous kind?
 
No, it's sodium Floride that they use.

from what I can tell (I use act restoring), they added in pluronic surfactant (polyoxamer) which is non ionic. Presumably to help wash the mouth but not interfere electrostactically with the Fluoride.

The 3rd most abundant ingredient is sorbitol, which is a thickener. My guess for this one would be to enhance the viscosity of the wash and maintain a thin coat of wash in your mouth for an extended time. the trick for fluoride penetration is concentration and time. A single rinse of 60 seconds isn't quite enough, but if you can keep the fluoride in contact with your teeth for even an addition 5-10 mins, you greatly increase effectiveness.
 
I always thought that flouride simply killed bacteria because it was poisonous, yet wasn't absorbed by the human body.
 
Thanks for the information. I actually found the forum trying to find out the same thing about ACT.

I was just wondering... if Fluoride is effective through topical absorbtion, why do companies sell bottled water with Fluoride added specifically for the growing teeth of babies? And why do City water system add it to drinking water for dental health? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if it is only effective topically, something you drink wouldn't linger in the mouth long enough to be effective?

Does it do anything at all when consumed? I have heard rumors from both sides: Some say it is dangerous to consume, others say it is good to consume. Is there any truth to either claim, or is it all just undocumented conjecture?
 
I do know that the fluoride in antibiotics gets blamed for a tendon issue. (The f-l-o in ciprofloxacine is fluoride.) Though I've never heard of any study tying water or toothpaste to tendinitis. Nor have I done the math to see how much fluoride is in a dose of cipro. But I did stop with the tooth paste about the time my tennis elbow started getting better.

So far as dosage in city water goes, I'm a big guy. Some days I drink a couple gallons of water between coffee, OJ from concentrate, iced tea, or just a glass from the tap. Plus milk from cows that may be fed city water too. Mightn't I be getting a double dose of anything in the water?

And to answer a question from above: Drinking fluoride as opposed to applying directly to teeth, will result in fluoride building better bones. So the body does absorb it. And the whole science behind F for teeth originated in places where the high F in water prevented local cavities.

So, regional tendinopathy rates?
 
Elliander said:
Does it do anything at all when consumed?
Click to expand...

Yes, as you yourself pointed out, it comes into contact with the teeth.

And as other posters pointed out, a higher concentration and longer contact with the teeth would be better, but any contact the fluoride has with the teeth is beneficial.


I have heard rumors from both sides: Some say it is dangerous to consume, others say it is good to consume. Is there any truth to either claim, or is it all just undocumented conjecture?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a "rumor" from our side. As also pointed out above, there are many areas of the world where the ground water has very high fluoride ion concentrations. Over 100 years ago, a dentist in Colorado noticed that children he saw were prone to brown staining on their teeth. They were also very likely to avoid cavities. He termed the situation "Colorado Brown Stain", and eventually figured out that high fluoride concentrations in the water led to decreased decay. This is a demonstrable fact, not a "rumor".

In addition, the populations that had these high fluoride concentrations were also studied for any other health issue, good or bad, and none was found.

I honestly don't know how fluoride's safety can be any better demonstrated.
 
Madalch said:
I always thought it simply replaced hydroxide ions in the surface enamel, transforming Ca5(PO4)3(OH) into Ca5(PO4)3F. Since fluoride is a much weaker base than hydroxide, fluoroapatite is a lot less sensitive to acids than hydroxyapatite, and thus less likely to corrode.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct.
 
I thought this was an intellectual forum, and didn't realize I was only talking to people of a specific "side". In my opinion, one has to be a bit more unbiased when having a scientific discussion. When I say "Rumor" I mean statements from a biased source that may or may not be documented but lacks links to an external source.

For example, according to one website, there is little or no discernible difference between communities with water fluoridation, and communities without. However, I am not able to post the link in this forum yet.

They lack links to external sources, and it's possible that, even if correct, there are other important factors. For example, if levels were the same, but people in the Fluoridated communities stopped using mouth wash, I would then consider the results more significant. Likewise, if the people there did most of the drinking from bottled water, or from water softener systems, I would consider the results less significant. There are too many factors to consider to leave anything to one source.

In my question, I was very specific.

"Some say it is dangerous to consume, others say it is good to consume."

I wasn't questioning the topical effectiveness on the teeth. I don't think anyone on any side disputes that. I was questioning the impact it has INSIDE the body.

Also, other posters have said that you have to keep mouth wash in your mouth for a certain period of time to be effective. If that is true, then wouldn't using mouth wash be substantially more effective than drinking it? Also, isn't concentration of importance?
 
Tomblvd said:
In addition, the populations that had these high fluoride concentrations were also studied for any other health issue, good or bad, and none was found.

I honestly don't know how fluoride's safety can be any better demonstrated.
Click to expand...

I wasn't satisifed with an undocumented answer, so I did a bit of research...

What about "Skeletal Fluorosis"? According to a number of websites, and quite a few disturbing photos, drinking Fluoride can lead to that condition. Can you cite any studies which dispute that? Because I actually am having allot of trouble even finding one study in any search engine that came to the conclusions you talk about. Who did these studies, and how dated are they?
 
joobz said:
No, it's sodium Floride that they use.

from what I can tell (I use act restoring), they added in pluronic surfactant (polyoxamer) which is non ionic. Presumably to help wash the mouth but not interfere electrostactically with the Fluoride.

The 3rd most abundant ingredient is sorbitol, which is a thickener. My guess for this one would be to enhance the viscosity of the wash and maintain a thin coat of wash in your mouth for an extended time. the trick for fluoride penetration is concentration and time. A single rinse of 60 seconds isn't quite enough, but if you can keep the fluoride in contact with your teeth for even an addition 5-10 mins, you greatly increase effectiveness.
Click to expand...

sorbitol is also a sweetener (it's used in some sugar free gums) so that may be why it's in there. Or it may be doing double duty as sweetener and thickener.
 
Trident has a new kind of gum that makes the same claim. The active ingredient is something they call Recaldent, which is made of a milk-derived protein called casein, phosphate and calcium. The casein sticks to the plaque layer and delivers calcium into the porous areas of teeth where it was previously leeched out by the plaque.
 
I don't need casein to glue calcium to MY teeth. It just happens day after day. It's what most people want to get rid of when they brush their teeth.
 
Plaque isn't calcium, it's calculus. It's the calcium yanked out of your tooth matrix by the bacteria eating our food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom