One Weird Thing About Brushing Your Teeth

[Skeptic Ginger]

Drugstore shelves are full of over-the-counter mouthwashes labeled "antibacterial," "kills 99% of germs," etc. Not all contain alcohol. So is that a lie, or just a different kind of bacteria, or what?
https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/c...i-protection-mouthwash/ID=prod6102313-product
https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/c...tiplaque-oral-rinse-mint/ID=300410999-product

But that's bull ****. It's false advertising and they skirt the law with their ads.

First one: Cepacol "Kills germs - Alcohol (14% V/V)
What does that even mean, it kills germs or it kills germs that cause bad breath?

And 14% alcohol isn't enough to be called an antiseptic.

2nd one: Pro-Health Bacteria Guard Mouthwash, CPC Antigingivitis/Antiplaque Oral Rinse Mint

Kills 99% of bacteria [Big letters prominent on the label. In the description in fine print you find an *]
*that cause plaque, gingivitis and bad breath, in laboratory tests.

Active Ingredients: Cetylpyridinium Chloride - 0.05 %
Inactive Ingredients: Water, Alcohol (15 wt%),

Decent studies are hard to find but here are a couple compiled in one document:
Cetylpyridinium Chloride Mouth rinse on Gingivitis and Plaque

A 6-month clinical trial to study the effects of a cetylpyridinium chloride mouth rinse on gingivitis
and plaque. Am J Dent 2005;18 (special issue):9A-14A. ...

Results. One hundred twenty-four subjects were evaluable at Month 3 and 119 at Month 6. After 6 months, subjects rinsing
with the CPC rinse showed 15.4% less gingival inflammation, 33.3% less gingival bleeding, and 15.8% less plaque relative
to the placebo group. All reductions were highly statistically significantly different (P< 0.01). Results were similar at 3
months. Both treatments were well-tolerated.

Comparison of the effects of cetylpyridinium chloride with an essential oil mouth rinse on dental
plaque and gingivitis - a 6six-month randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol.2007 Aug; 34(8):658-67

Conclusion. The essential findings of this study indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in the
anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis benefits between the experimental CPC mouth rinse and the positive control EO mouth
rinse over a 6-month period.

The summary claims it shows the 15% or more benefit ignoring the 'no difference' conclusion.

Maybe I'm not reading something carefully enough. Perhaps you can find something supporting your challenge to my assertion?

 

[casebro]

Are you taking "Kills 99% of bacteria [Big letters prominent on the label. In the description in fine print you find an *]
*that cause plaque, gingivitis and bad breath, in laboratory tests." to mean it does NOT kill Pneumococcus?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you taking "Kills 99% of bacteria [Big letters prominent on the label. In the description in fine print you find an *]
*that cause plaque, gingivitis and bad breath, in laboratory tests." to mean it does NOT kill Pneumococcus?

Probably not. Especially since pneumococci tend to colonize your throat and nasopharynx not your teeth.

 

[casebro]

d dup post

 

[casebro]

Probably not. Especially since pneumococci tend to colonize your throat and nasopharynx not your teeth.

So brushing teeth won't help after all. Got it.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Maybe I'm not reading something carefully enough. Perhaps you can find something supporting your challenge to my assertion?

I don't know anything about it. I just noted that there are a lot of commercial products that claim to kill oral bacteria. If that's not true, if I am ever hospitalized I won't ask for Scope .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So brushing teeth won't help after all. Got it.

I didn't say that. Obviously the OP citation found oral care to be significant in reducing hospital acquired pneumonia. Your mouth is full of all kinds of bacteria. If they accumulate then there is a greater chance of some of them finding their way into one's lungs.

Viruses are prevalent in non-ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia Viruses are prevalent because one gets a respiratory infection while you are immobilized like many hospitalized patients are and what would normally be an upper respiratory infection becomes a lower respiratory infection.

But if we are looking specifically at dental care and the risk of non-ventilator hospital acquired pneumonia, NVHAP, (what the OP article is about) then the most common bacterial pathogens are what the dental care would prevent the most of.

The most common viral organisms were rhinovirus (n = 19), influenza (n = 7), parainfluenza (n = 6), coronavirus (n = 5), and metapneumovirus and rhinovirus (n = 4 for each). The most frequent bacterial pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 17) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 9). Although influenza arose most often during the traditional influenza season in North America, there was no seasonality seen in the distribution of other viral organisms.

Staph and pseudomonas would be commonly found in the mouth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know anything about it. I just noted that there are a lot of commercial products that claim to kill oral bacteria. If that's not true, if I am ever hospitalized I won't ask for Scope .

Don't buy it either.

Listerine has had a long history of false advertising about killing germs. It's not the only product out there marketed under false pretenses.

 

[autumn1971]

Are you taking "Kills 99% of bacteria [Big letters prominent on the label. In the description in fine print you find an *]
*that cause plaque, gingivitis and bad breath, in laboratory tests." to mean it does NOT kill Pneumococcus?

Anything in every advertisement is a big load of ********.
“Laboratory tests” are usually of the “ten untrained interns working for the company kinda looked at it and agree” unless there is a regulatory body certifying results.

All marketing is useless trash

 

[Dr. Keith]

Anything in every advertisement is a big load of ********.
“Laboratory tests” are usually of the “ten untrained interns working for the company kinda looked at it and agree” unless there is a regulatory body certifying results.

All marketing is useless trash

And regulatory bodies aren’t as picky as you would expect. If you ran 50 tests and one showed a positive correlation, that is all you have to show to back up non-pharmaceutical claims. But the real key is that you don’t have to get pre-approval from the FDA, so as long as you don’t step over a few clearly defined lines you are unlikely to ever be asked to show evidence unless there is a whistleblower and you are mad shady.

FDA looks for claims of curing baldness, removing fat, and removing wrinkles with great scrutiny. Any other claim to treat a disease will also draw attention, but not as quickly. Any cures are drugs and have to go through pharma approval. That is why you see so much “support” or “reduces signs of” and other crap like that.

 

[Dude111]

How do the bacteria know you're in the hospital

 
Almost seems like they are trying to hurt ppl on purpose doesnt it?