…or perhaps by somebody that was worried about sugarless gum being a health risk. Wasn’t that back in the Saccharine Age?
I am a dentist. There are a couple of things that should be known about this subject. 1. Yes, chewing sugar free gum is good for your teeth. However, this is not an intrinsic property of the gum, but rather your own saliva. Your saliva has natural buffers in it (as well as antibacterial substances, antibodies, etc) which neutralize the acids produced by the bacteria in your mouth, thus reducing/preventing the destruction of your teeth. The act of chewing (anything) stimulates the flow of saliva in your mouth. This is why chewing sugarless gum is beneficial. Sugar-containing gum is not good because the damaging effects of bathing your teeth in sugar far outweigh the benefits of increasing the salivary flow. 2. The other thing you must realize whenever you see an ad that says something to the effect of “more dentists prefer — than…” is that we get free samples. We like free stuff, just like anybody, so if P&G sends me a tube of Crest, I will use it, and therefore they can make claims like “4/5 dentists use Crest toothpaste.” Yes, I use Crest, but that does not mean I think it is better than all of the other toothpastes.
If you use an actual factual statement in an ad - i.e. “4 out of 5 dentists prefer” rather than “dentists go crazy over the great taste of Bleem” - then you had better have a real life formal journal article or survey instrument to back up that factual claim or else the FCC or other appropriate regulatory agency can and will tell you to remove or modify your ad. Puffery (which is the real technical term) is allowed to an almost infinite degree. Testable specifies must be backed up.
And your competitors will be the first ones to complain to the feds. 
The problem with studies is that you can get one to say anything you want. You have to be really skeptical; many studies have inaccurate data and unsupported conclusions, and there is nothing illegal about them. Studies cost money. Who pays for them? The person who wants to say “4 out of 5 dentists prefer —.” You need to check for things like if the study was a double-blind study, were there adequate controls, how long did the study last, how many people were in the control groups, were there follow-ups… and so on. Many studies have none of the above - they might just be a survey, which is completely unreliable. So yes, you can have a study that says “4 out of 5 dentists prefer ‘Bleem’” - that doesn’t mean it is accurate. Notice on TV, you always hear “A recent study shows that …” - you never hear “A recent study, conducted by [some legitimate organization], shows that…” For all we know, that ‘study’ could have been done by anybody.
So, does ‘Bleem’ actually taste any good?
It tastes great! But it was the cocaine derivitave that gave Bleem the actual edge in the market place…
I go to the dentist who prefers Meelb.
I should have noted that the study done doesn’t have to be up to publishable journal quality to pass FCC approval. As long as it was done legitimately, and not by going to the ad director’s dentist, it should must muster.
I remember from ad books about the case of Campbell’s vegetable soup, which looked thick and hearty and bowl-brimming with vegetables on camera. And well it should, since there was an underlayer of clear marbles that the vegetables were perched upon in the bowl. The ad got bounced as soon as the authorities were notified.
My only concern with Cecil’s answer was that he spelt tire (meaning to tire during a race) not the correct spelling of tyre.
In the U.S tire is the usual spelling.
And “spelt” is spelled “spelled”
Homer J – I guess that’s the last time you try sarcasm on this board.
The other day I was thinking about this. Are bacterial excretions the only reason that tooth decay occurs? And, if so, are you less likely to get cavities while taking powerful antibiotics?
Do placebos promote tooth decay?
i mean, if they really are sugar pills and all…
Only if you chew them.
chorpler, I doubt it. Typically antibiotics are circulated in the bloodstream. I think there are some topical forms, but they are external use only. The bacteria in the mouth grow on the outside of the skin and teeth, but inside the mouth. They are not really exposed to the bloodstream, so remain largely unaffected by antibiotic use.
RitterSport, how do you see sarcasm?
So if you used Listerine or some other anti-bacterial mouthwash that kills germs, but never brushed your teeth, would you avoid cavities?
… hmmm, perhaps I should rephrase, because I guess my question is more of a theoretical one: if you took some antibiotic, or some mouthwash, or some hypothetical device that would kill all the bacteria in your mouth, but left the big chunks of food and/or coating of sugar on your teeth (but with no bacteria hiding in the food or under the film on your teeth, or between your teeth, or anywhere else), would you completely avoid tooth decay? Or is there some mechanism besides acidic bacterial excretions that erodes tooth enamel?
See, I always thought the fifth dentist was a statisitcal <bad spelling> anaomoly</bad spelling>. After all, if they claimed that 5 out of 5 scientists reccomended trident, then that would seem as if ALL dentists reccomended trident. Now, dentists are a lot alike. Most of them are <anti-dentite>sucidial sadists</anti-dentite>. However, I doubt all of them could agree on gum.
And on the subject of placebos- do placebos have side effects, and if so, are they real?
chorpler, cavities, or caries as we like to call them, are caused by bacteria (most commonly, s. mutans, among others). What happens is that bacteria take up residence on and around your teeth. When you feed them (sugar), they excrete acid as a waste product. It is this acid which dissolves the minerals in your teeth and break them down. So while bacteria cause cavities, any acid can break down your teeth and cause problems. Bulimics often often have broken down teeth because vomiting brings stomach acid into the mouth. Soft drinks and sour things are also acidic, and if taken in significant quantities, they can break down your teeth like bacteria. As far as taking antibiotics for cavities - not a good idea. The blood supply to the outer surfaces of the teeth is inadequate to fight cavities and external solutions just get washed off. Moreover, there are many problems with the continued use of antibiotics. They should only be taken when needed, because over time, more and more strains of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. The overprescription of antibiotics in the past is starting to cause problems today, and the overprescription of antibiotics today will cause even more significant problems in the future. In addition to bacterial resistance problems, it is important to realize that not all bacteria are bad. There are many bacteria that live in and on people that are completely harmless, and others which are actually necessary for our survival. If you kill off all the bacteria in your mouth, you leave yourself open for fungal and other types of infections. The best way to keep your teeth cavity-free is to physically remove them from your teeth (brushing), and the best way to prevent periodontal disease (loss of the bone that holds your teeth in place) is to physically remove the bacteria from the pockets/gums around your teeth - this means flossing. You should also see your dentist for cleanings every six months, or every 3 months if you already have periodontal disease (this is how much time it takes friendly harmless bacteria to be replaced by mean destructive bacteria). I hope this has been helpful.
Trident’s latest commercial addresses this very issue. Maybe their ad copy people read Cecil!
What I’ve always wondered about this toothpaste/sweetener debate is why Xylitol has never really taken off in the U.S. The fact that it hasn’t been mentioned in this thread is a good example of that. In most European countries, especially in Scandinavia, products with Xylitol are quite popular on the toothpaste market, not to mention chewing gum and some other types of candy.
I’m no dentist but AFAIK, xylitol is a sugar derived from birch trees and it has been proven in long clinical trials in the past 20 years to effectively prevent tooth decay and strengthen teeth.
I remember reading a long time ago that the FDA never approved xylitol, and I’ve never ceased to wonder why. Any ideas from our resident dentist or someone else? Thanks.
BKKBoy, what the hell are you talking about? FDA doesn’t have to “approve” xylitol, it’s not an active ingredient. It IS generally recognized as safe in the U.S., and it IS used in a number of toothpastes and chewing gums in the U.S., including Trident. It’s not especially popular for this use because artificial sweeteners are cheaper to use.
Yes, xylitol is recognized as a “medicinal ingredient” in Canada, among other countries, and Trident is sold as a medicinal product in Canada. In the U.S., this would be (1) a disastrous way to sell chewing gum, and (2) an enormous waste of money and resources on the company’s part. Trident sells magnificently as it is, and I doubt that the manufacturers see any point in filing an expensive application and performing expensive clinical trials for a drug claim of dubious market value. Trident did try to make a fuss over its xylitol about 25 years ago, and I don’t think anyone understood (a) how a sugarless gum could contain sugar, nor (b) why that would be a good thing.
For the record, xylitol is a polyol; xylose is a sugar.
Oh, and I suspect that Scandinavia is particularly fond of xylitol because most of it comes from Finland.