I’m not an expert, but I clicked on the link to the studies and got this jargle:
At PAIST (ProxiHealthcare Advanced Institute for Science and Technology), our in-house research laboratory, we continuously expand our research on…
Emphasis mine. This is a huge red flag. Additionally, they don’t have basic links to the studies in reputable journals. You have to email them to get the studies, which makes me suspicious that it has any kind of objective peer review.
I did find this 2016 paper, however. No idea if Science Direct is reputable. The notable section is this:
For the biofilm treatment, an electric signal with increased total electrical energy, 0.25 V amplitude sinusoidal signal at 10 MHz with a 0.25 V DC offset, was applied in combination with low doses of the antibiotic gentamicin (10 μg/mL) for the BE.
They’re essentially trying to do the same thing here, with Fluoride being their analogous antibiotic. The electricity at that frequency is supposed to break up a protective “biofilm” the bacteria produces, ostensibly allowing the fluoride to do its work.
However, I fail to see how it’s significantly better than just brushing your teeth, which is what the brushing is supposed to do. Furthermore, what happens to plaque? Or the dead bacteria? Does it just stay on your teeth?
The inventor is a PhD Electrical Engineer, so this just seems like an over-engineered toothbrush to me.
Thanks; I appreciate your thoughts on this! I did miss the ‘in-house’ part in my initial read, and I agree that is the major red flag! Essentially, enough to end the discussion IMHO.