Disadvantages Expensive for a generic toothpaste with a different flavour
|How do you like the taste?|
|Value for money|
The dictionary definition of remineralise is....1. To replace the depleted mineral content of bones, teeth, etc.
Fantastic... toothpaste that will repair my teeth. Just what I've been waiting for, no more trips to the dentist for fillings, I'll use this toothpaste and all will be fine!I bought this on - don't laugh - a buy one get one free offer at Tesco, £1.99 for 100ml tube. So I had two tubes of the stuff... I thought my filling filled teeth would be repairing themselves overnight! I Presume you can buy this anywhere as it's a Macleans (GSK) product.
Ok, perhaps I was naive. Gullible even. But then the blurb on the pack is so enticing...'Over time, acids formed from sugars in food and drink can harm your tooth enamel, causing dental mineral loss. This formulation contains an active remineralising ingredient scientifically proven to intensify the replenishment of those lost minerals, helping to restore tooth enamel. Daily brushing will gradually repair the microscopic damage not yet visible to the naked eye and make the teeth more resistant to further acid attacks. Enhanced with camomile essence and refreshing mint. This toothpaste even works while you sleep.'
Most of which is true oddly enough. But lets disassemble the blurb and look a little more closely... all is not what it seems.
This is playground level dental science.Remember a few years ago when dental marketing focused on the bacterial 'plaque' that made tooth decaying acids? Are Macleans are now saying sugar is responsible? Where have all the bacteria gone? Perhaps they are a little inconvenient for the marketing people to deal with?
This part of the blurb is simply exploiting the widely broadcast message that sugar is bad for your teeth, without going to the trouble of really explaining why.>
In reality the demineralisation of a tooth is caused by acids as Macleans say, but the acids are created by certain types of bacteria living in our mouths.Bacteria are living organisms just like we are (more like some people than others obviously). Living organisms consume food and produce waste products that are subsequently excreted. The bacteria that may cause cavities (mutans streptococci and lactobacilli) consume sugars as food (glucose, sucrose, fructose, lactose, or cooked starches).
The waste products these bacteria create are the acids (especially lactic acid) which cause a tooth's demineralisation (otherwise known as tooth decay). Yes that is the same lactic acid as found in milk.The bacteria that live in our mouths eat after we do. So, as we eat foods which contain sugars the bacteria get a meal too, and within minutes they start producing the acids which cause tooth decay. Those foods include the obvious items such as pop, chocolate, and sweets, but also the less obvious milk, fruits, vegetables, and fruit juice.
The simple fact is almost all foods contain material that can sustain bacteria, even protein rich foods such as meats contain some carbohydrates and sugars.So we have to accept bacteria are with us, and are going to get a feed when we do.
So what do we do? The easy answer is to clean your teeth after you've eaten, removing left over food and dislodging bacteria.But hang on, the advice on the pack says clean twice daily. No mention of after meals at all. In fact most people I know clean their teeth at bedtime, and in the morning when they wake up. Well after dinner and before breakfast in other words. This gives the bacteria the run of your mouth for the time they are likely to do most damage, the hours immediately after eating. A Mars bar and a can of Coke at lunch might mean your tooth decaying bacteria have maybe 10 hours of acid producing free time, and a glass of fruit juice in the morning is just as bad unless you clean your teeth AFTER breakfast.
>Now science and marketing don't always mix. In marketing terms bacteria are widely seen as 'bad' and not something you even want to mention unless you have to.
They are also hard to deal with, some toothpaste manufacturers used to put antibacterial agents in their toothpastes to combat these bad bacteria. The problem was anti - bacterial agents are indiscriminate, so they killed the good bacteria as well as the bad. This led to poor digestion problems, mouth ulcers, and even gum disease.So effectively toothpaste has no direct effect on the bacteria that cause tooth decay.
All toothpaste is in fact soap for teeth, which is why one of the main ingredients in almost all mainstream toothpastes, sodium lauryl sulfate, is a powerful degreasant. It is not only in toothpaste, but is also used in soap, shampoo, bubble bath, engine degreaser, and garage floor cleaner, and is also used to clean cars in car washes.Back to the blurb :
This formulation contains an active remineralising ingredient scientifically proven to intensify the replenishment of those lost minerals, helping to restore tooth enamel.
So does it have a lot of fluoride in? More than other similar products? Nope. 1350ppm fluoride in Remineralise is exactly the same as in Aquafresh, less than in Colgate which has 1450ppm, and about the same as most own brand supermarket toothpastes.So remineralise is nothing special.
It may also surprise you to know…There is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that Fluoride is actually good for your teeth.
I'll come back to all the ingredients later - just bear in mind where this is all heading.
No it won't. Brushing will not repair your teeth, your teeth will repair your teeth. Brushing will help stop further decay but in itself does not repair anything. It should be noted that there is no mention of the need for any toothpaste in this sentence.
Enhanced… subjective at best. Enhanced in what respect? Not in any remineralising sense, these are just the flavourings that make the otherwise utterly unpalatable blend of toxins and pollutants bearable to have in your mouth.The last of the blurb
Doing what? Stacking shelves at Tesco? I presume that they are attempting to refer to the effects of fluoride in remineralising your teeth. In which case they could miss the word 'This' off the front of the sentence as pretty much all toothpaste does that.You can probably tell by now that I'm not that impressed with this (or most other) toothpaste.
The irritating blurb started my cynicism streak twitching to the point where I read the ingredients list and bothered to research them properly.I want to go back over those ingredients, I know this can be boring but in this case I think it is important. I've mentioned Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, and Sodium Fluoride, but I think the effects of these and some of the other ingredients bear a closer look.
Aqua - That's water for all you non-Latin speakers out there. Marketing people don't like calling it water, sound too common to pay £1.99 a tube for!Hydrated silica - An abrasive. No known risks other than possible contamination with crystalline silica, a strong carcinogen linked to many different cancers.
Sorbitol - White, odourless, sweet-tasting powder. Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol. It has two thirds the calories of sugar, and is not as sweet (60% as sweet as sugar). It is poorly absorbed by the body, so it does not raise insulin levels as much as sugar. It does not promote tooth decay. As little as 10g a day is known to possibly cause irritable bowel syndrome. Sorbitol effects your bowel so vigourously it is somtimes sold as a laxative.Glycerin - neutral lubricant and humectant. No apparent risks.
PEG-6 - A thickener with foam stabilisation properties. Basically makes toothpaste foam. It is used in toothpaste to prevent bacteria from breaking down the pyrophosphates used to control tartar build up. Except obviously remineralise does not contain any pyrophosphates. There are some health risks, mostly associated with possible contaminants. Not safe for use on injured or damaged skin according to industry safety panel (Cosmetic Ingredient Review, CIR), how this translates to bleeding gums … not sure.Sodium Lauryl Sulfate - Soap / degreasant. Where to start on this one. Nasty stuff, but ubiquitous.
Aroma - Smell!Titanium Dioxide - Depends on the form, most likely the thing that makes the toothpate look white. However Titanium Dioxide is used as an abrasive powder.
Xanthan Gum - A thickener to give the toothpaste a gummy thick feel.Carageenan - Another gum, but a bit nastier than Xanthan gum. A common food additive, it may play a role in the development of colon cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases, like ulcerative colitis. Comes from red seaweed plants. Used to thicken and improve the texture of foods, it can be found in many of them, including ice cream, yoghurt, cottage cheese, condensed milk, pudding, jams, soy products and bakery products. Causes intestinal problems in many animals in experiments.
Sodium Fluoride - Now this is a debatable compound. Widely accepted (but not absolutely proven) to assist in building teeth, it is on the other hand quite an offensive chemical which is poisonous, a polluting by product of the chemical industry, carcinogenic and potentially pretty grim. Go to http://www.fluoridation.com to make your own mind up. On that site there are lots of non-industry sponsored reports on the effects of Fluoride both in the water supply and toothpaste.Sodium Saccharin - Sweetener to help cover the vile taste of this lot. Strong links to cancer and remains on the US government's list of potential carcinogens. http://earthrenewal.org/saccharin.htm
Eucalyptus Globulus - Otherwise known as Tasmanian Blue Gum. Natural Eucalyptus.Mentha Arvensis - Herb menthol
Salvia Officinalis - Herb SageAnthemis Nobilis - Camomile
CI 77492 - Iron oxide yellow, the old E172.CI74260 - Phthalocyanine green.
As toothpastes go this is a standard one. It's different from others in that it has a green stripe and tastes of camomile.
That's what I find so offensive about this toothpaste. It doesn't lie outright about its benefits, but it certainly doesn't tell the truth either.I didn't finish the first tube, and threw the second one away. Do a Google search for 'natural toothpaste' to find an alternative with less associated risk.
Macleans marketed this toothpaste for less than a year, presumably unsuccessfully. Sadly its withdrawal was probably due more to the dubious Camomile taste than the daft marketing claims.
Attention, this is the first review from this author
Instead of giving a negative rating, consider:
Help this member by giving your advice
Report fraud (for example plagiarism) or other issue with the review to the Ciao support team
Add your comment