Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> but that there is a need for more clinical trials, which is an enormous difference.

Almost twenty years after this compound was developed into toothpaste, the best we can show in peer reviewed research is “inconclusive” when it’s used in toothpaste and you consider that a big win? I consider that “doesn’t seem to make much of a difference”.

Maybe it’s the novamin that helped you. Maybe it is one of the other compounds. Regular Sensodyne is a toothpaste for sensitive teeth, after all. Maybe you just started brushing more carefully. I did when I got my pack of “Sensodyne whitening repair & protect deep repair” toothpaste. That tube was almost double a regular Sensodyne, which is already an expensive brand.




Big win? I didn't say that. Your original citation was an analysis of studies that actually said "more research is necessary", yet you claimed it as proof that it doesn't work. It doesn't work like that.

Novamin is caught in a classic consumer product study quagmire. It's a proprietary, IP-wrapped solution. This leaves extraordinarily few people with an interest in proving its efficacy. Who is going to pay to study it? And the answer is that only people with a strong financial interest in its effectiveness are willing to study it, and those studies have little credibility due to bias.

The vast majority of consumer products you use have no peer reviewed research behind them for the same reason.

But we know its method of function, and the theory behind its operation. People using the product often find reduced sensitivity (I went from really bad sensitivity to no sensitivity) and a whitening effect. Eh, good enough for me.

And it's interesting that this submission is about a product that has a virtually identical method of operation - calcium and phosphorous ions.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: