|
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
The Toothpaste Comparison Item
| 
Jan 17 00:40 UTC 1995 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 25 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 1 of 25:
|
Jan 17 00:45 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
kentn
|
|
response 2 of 25:
|
Jan 17 04:28 UTC 1995 |
I've been using Tartar Control Crest Fresh Mint Gel for a while now. I
like the mint taste and the gel formulation is less gritty to me than
the regular. The tartar control part has been successful according to
my dental hygienist, who has been keeping records of the condition of
my teeth--apparently the use of TC toothpaste does help a lot in
reducing tartar and in making my cleaning sessions much shorter.
Doesn't seem to bother my teeth (fortunately).
|
popcorn
|
|
response 3 of 25:
|
Jan 17 15:07 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
brenda
|
|
response 4 of 25:
|
Jan 23 04:24 UTC 1995 |
My mother and I both have sensitive teeth, and our dentist recommends
Colgate. Sensodyne leaves a slimy coating on your teeth, which other
toothpastes don't. If you can't stand slimy teeth, sensodyne works
great. If not, a *mildly* abrasive toothpaste isn't supposed to aggravate
sensitive teeth.
|
iggy
|
|
response 5 of 25:
|
Sep 5 20:18 UTC 1995 |
i just started using 'rembrandt' because i want to
try to get rid of the coffee/tea/cola stains. it also
has flouride and baking soda.
once i heard that abrasive toothpaste is bad becausae
it damages your gums.
does anyone know if it is true?
|
omni
|
|
response 6 of 25:
|
Sep 6 07:41 UTC 1995 |
I heard ol' Denise on Ch 7 touting a new toothpaste with Stannis Flouride.
Actually, SF is an old ingrediant that some toothpaste makers are bringing
back to help cure gingivitis. 4 out of 5 dentists and all that jazz, but no
word on when that 5th dentist will cave ;)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 7 of 25:
|
Dec 5 16:52 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 8 of 25:
|
Dec 13 13:54 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 9 of 25:
|
Dec 24 12:43 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
omni
|
|
response 10 of 25:
|
Dec 25 16:12 UTC 1995 |
Probably a little too much Sodium Laureth Sulfate. Mine did that too when
I made my own (Ok, I was a curious teenager) ;)
|
valerie
|
|
response 11 of 25:
|
Aug 13 19:54 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
i
|
|
response 12 of 25:
|
Aug 13 21:53 UTC 1998 |
Been a while since i asked my brother-in-law in that field (DDS *and*
dental public health ABD), but i think that 5 minutes was what he gave
as optimum brushing time.
But if your teeth really are clean sooner, you can use a fluoride rinse
and save the wear & tear on your gums.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 13 of 25:
|
Aug 14 13:23 UTC 1998 |
Valerie: regarding brushing for two minutes - We got an electric (sonic)
toothbrush as an anniversary present which has a timing device in it. It
makes a little buzz at half minute intervals and stops after two minutes.
Now, I brush each side of the tops and bottoms for half minute a piece
totalling 2 minutes. I KNOW I never brushed for that long before. The
buzzing noise makes it easy to do. Also, I can walk around the bedroom while
brushing now, so I don't get bored. I do other stuff while brushing my teeth.
I have had the machine over a year and my checkups have been much better, my
professional cleanings take far less time and discomfort.
|
valerie
|
|
response 14 of 25:
|
Aug 17 00:34 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 25:
|
Aug 17 13:50 UTC 1998 |
Yeah, stop mouthing off about that. :)
|
i
|
|
response 16 of 25:
|
Aug 17 22:33 UTC 1998 |
Well, the old wive's rule of thumb was that you'd lose a tooth for every
kid you had (presumably due to calcium depletion).....
|
valerie
|
|
response 17 of 25:
|
Aug 19 14:08 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
gracel
|
|
response 18 of 25:
|
Aug 19 14:37 UTC 1998 |
Well, about ten years ago what I heard from my dentist was that pregnancy
tended to change the saliva composition a little, making the mouth a little
more welcoming to the germs that cause periodontal disease, but not attacking
teeth directly. (Lots of calcium is a Good Thing, anyway)
|
keesan
|
|
response 19 of 25:
|
Sep 2 23:09 UTC 1998 |
Sodium laureth sulfate is the major ingredient of baby shampoo. Presumably
it is put in because people expect toothpaste to foam, or perhaps to clear
solid fats from your mouth if there is something wrong with your mouth
enzymes. I don't know if the tooth powders contain it. We brush without
toothpaste and it seems to remove the dirt just fine, the brush is
sufficiently abrasive by itself. We also floss daily.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 25:
|
Sep 2 23:17 UTC 1998 |
sodium lauryl sulfate. It is an anionic detergent.
|
keesan
|
|
response 21 of 25:
|
Sep 3 20:24 UTC 1998 |
Sodium lauryl is used in adult shampoos, sodium laureth in baby shampoos, I
think it is either milder or has a more neutral pH.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 25:
|
Sep 3 20:53 UTC 1998 |
There is no chemical name "sodium laureth sulfate". It must be a trade
name for SLS or some other surfactant, or a mixture of SLS with something
else. Sodium lauryl sulfate is neutral, by the way. I've noticed that on
shampoo bottles the lists of ingredients include a lot of proprietary
names (not standard chemical nomenclature).
|
keesan
|
|
response 23 of 25:
|
Sep 6 14:41 UTC 1998 |
A variation of SLS is SODIUM LAURETH SULFATE (Sodium Lauryl Ether
Sulfate- SLES). It exhibits many of the same characteristics and is a
higher-foaming variation of SLS.
(found at a website when I searched on Sodium laureth sulfate).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 25:
|
Sep 6 17:16 UTC 1998 |
Some anti-SLS hype is at
http://web.cyberis.net/vhosts/ecopax.com/neways/sls_sles.html which may be
the site you are referring to. It is not written in the objective language
of science. Some of the chemical statements on nonsense. The page includes
a link to an MSDS on SLC, at
http://www.chem.utah.edu/MSDS/S/SODIUM_DODECYL_SULFATE_(SDS), but does NOT
give a link to an MSDS on "sodium laureth sulfate". I interpret this to
mean someone is trying to slip one over on you. The MSDS for SLS might
well give the impression of a dangerous compound, but this is the nature
of MSDSs. You should look at the MSDS for sodium chloride!
Interestingly, the page at http://www.successteams.com/p0000321.htm damns
*both* SLS and SLES, attributing the same "irritating" and "carcinogenic"
properties to both! Both sites like to refer to the use of SLS as a
"garage floor cleaner" (jeezle-peezle!), but this page considers SLES to
be in the same category. The page, incidentally, is a *marketing* site
from NEWAYS. However it does give a hint in referring to SLES as an
"ethoxylated version of SLS". The plot deepens....
There is a product manufactured by the Stepan Co. as "sodium laureth
sulfate" [http://www.stepan.com/products/gfsl610a.asp], which they call
"Steol 4N". I downloaded the Steol 4N product bulletin, where I found the
chemical formula. I would name it "lauryl ter-ethoxy sulfate". Its main
advantage over SLS is improved foam stability in the presence of soaps.
The "bottom line" is, you were caught in the marketing battle among
shampoo manufacturers.
|