Hey Jules, I am no medical doctor.  Do take your dentist’s word over mine in regards to medical issues.  However, I am an electrical engineer, so do take my word over your dentist’s on electrical issues. 

Sonic just refers to sound.  Ultrasonic is a technical term that refers to sound with a frequency beyond human hearing (beyond about 20KHz).  There is a big difference between technical terminologies and marketing.  When the engineers refer to ultrasound (it has been used it cameras to sense the range of the subject of the photo and focus the camera) they just mean sensors and emitters of a particular type, nothing very special.  When marketers try to convince you to buy a product, they try to use the romance spectacle and glamor in a word’s connotations. When marketers (mis)use the technical terms, then they distort terms like digital, sonic, power amplifier, high-fidelity, stereo, radio, etc. into some romantic facsimile of their former self.  Some sound romantically futuristic powerful and hi-tech, others sound romatically warmly quaintly nostalgic, and there are other romantic connotations.  When I talked about the electo-mechanism that I am 90% certain is behind the “sonic” toothbrushes, I was just trying to warn people to beware of the marketing hyperbole and not to get too swept away by it. 

The marketers never mean anything specific when they use a technical sounding term, they only mean to sell you a product.  They create confusion in this way.  To reiterate, I don’t think these “sonic” brushes are using any sort of ultrasound emitters, nor any specific frequency that is purposefully designed to be beyond human hearing.  Instead, I think they are just using some simple electro-magnet, placed very near a metal plate, causing a vibration at an arbitrary frequency, that vibrates the bristles for you.

On the contrary, I think that one brand does specify a frequency for their vibrations (42KHz or something like that), but I won’t believe it on face value.  Nor will I believe that higher frequencies are more effective at cleaning teeth than a manual brush (as the ADA is confirming) at face value.  It is just marketing hype, in my eyes, and therefore nearly meaningless.  I warn you to beware of meaningless marketing hype which sounds technical.  It is the marketers job to romance you.

As far as dependency on carbonated sugar drinks is concerned… I was certainly addicted to them.  I changed my diet to include lots of fresh fruit, veggies, and beans.  I kicked my carbonated sugar drink habit.  I found that for all of my life I have never truly been hungry for sugar deserts, but have instead truly been hungry for fresh fruit!  Always when I ate a sugar desert, one-more was never enough.  But when I eat fruit, I do get satisfied!    Maybe you can be satisfied too!  Not that switching from soda to citrus will help your enamel, according to that Mayo Clinic article.  I am glad that I don’t have to eliminate, but merely “Limit consumption” of acids, because I do love the taste of them!

I guess the amount of acid/enamel loss that is tolerable just depends on how long you plan to live.  Maybe humans that only lived for 30 years didn’t have to worry about enamel.  But what about if you plan to live ‘til 40, or 60, or 100, or 120!?  Jeez, maybe I do have to give up acids!

Thanks, Jules.

The “sonic” word is indeed marketing hype.

I’m shopping for an electric toothbrush myself now because I’ve been brushing too HARD, wearing down the enamel over the years.

Jules - 21 December 2008 03:02 PM

Oh, an interesting note my dentist pointed out to me on the last visit, don’t use a mouthwash containing alcohol at night just before bed. Only use it in the morning. This is because the alcohol dries out the mouth. If the mouth is dry, saliva is not protecting the teeth. Since the mouth is already a bit dry at night, and that is when most damage occurs, using alcohol makes it even worse. He said if I enjoyed a nighttime mouthwash (and who wouldn’t want their spouse to have fresh breath before tucking into bed?) to use alcohol free ACT rinse or Tom’s of Maine breath rinse.

That’s good to know!

Re: flossing…I have a Reach Access Power Flosser. It cost less than $5. I really should use it more.

macro820 - 21 December 2008 10:11 PM

I looked up a cheap ultrasonic cleaner and it uses a frequency of 42,000 hz I would say the tooth brush is in the 500-2000 range and ultrasonic cleaners use a fluid and sound waves.

Good research macro820.  But there is a good example of the meaningless marketing hyperbole in what you posted, hyperbole that sounds technical in order to romance people. 

First some background to ground you readers to planet earth before we travel too high into the sky, where these marketers are trying to take you.  Here are some technical facts.  Sound waves are not any sort of physical object at all.  What are sound waves?  Look at your ordinary loud speakers, like what is sitting beside your computer.  There is a circular cup attached to a magnet (technically called a voice coil) and an electrical signal is induced into the magnet to make the cup move forwards and backwards a little bit.  Cups fundamentally the same as the ones used with a piece of taught string to make a telephone.  The cup pushes some air molecules (real physical particles of air) into your ear canal, they then push your ear-drum membrane.  IF the frequency of those vibrations (or waves) of air molecules is within human hearing abilities (about 20-20KHz), then we call that sound.  If the vibrations are above human hearing, we call that ultrasound.  If they are below the human hearing we don’t really have a name for that frequency band, but sonar does use that band.  Keep in mind that anything that vibrates might make a little buzzing sound and is therefore “emitting sound waves”, that is no big deal, is it?  That is nothing advanced nor impressive, is it?  If we put a waterproof loud speaker underwater, your ear doesn’t hear it very well, the water molecules don’t move your ear drum very well, nor the air above the pool of water, therefore when underwater the loud speaker doesn’t make much sound at all!  All of that is real, keep it in mind when reading about vibrating toothbrushes.

Now, about the marketing…

All of the additional ideas about a mystery fluid and sound waves is meaningless hyperbole!  One possible exception that might be real is the cleaning effect on jewelry/clothes, but I have never seen proof that the high-frequency vibrating fluid molecules can clean anything, teeth included.

The marketers are adding way too much hype to these “sonic” products and I’m just trying to warn you people.  That much hype is irresponsible and inappropriate.  These are business owners and marketers behaving badly.

Now some more facts…

Now lets re-design that loud speaker a bit.  Have the magnet vibrate a plate (of plastic, metal, or whatever) instead of a cup, at whatever frequency.  Then attach some bristles to the vibrating plate, and slide them into your mouth for a minute.  The plate vibrates the bristles in your mouth.  Buzz buzz is the sound (that’s the one and only thing “sonic” about these products) and the small vibrations feel like a (aaaaaah) nice massage.  What other product do you know of that vibrates, gives a nice massage, and is slid inside an orifice of yours?  Do you think that I am the first person to come up with that idea?  I’ll bet that the people who make these vibrating toothbrushes came up with it first.

There is nothing wrong with having a nice massage, go for it!  But massages don’t clean teeth and gum lines.

Again, about the marketing…

Medical doctors are just as susceptible to technical sounding meaningless marketing hype as anyone else.  So tell your dentist.  The marketers are turning the hyperbole up even higher for medical doctors than they do for the general public.  So be a friend to you doctor and help them out with some skepticism about irresponsibly and deceitfully over-hyped products.

The evidence of the culprits’ marketing ...

From the Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vibrating toothbrush

“Sonicare toothbrushes use a technology that generates high amplitude and high frequency bristle motion, which in turn creates dynamic cleaning activity. The resonating motion of the bristles is gentle on dentin, yet penetrates deeply into interproximal spaces.”

That was a richly embellished and meticulously decorated load of meaningless technical sounding crap!  Crap that I think medical doctors are as susceptible to and anyone else.  Not one word of that promises that the toothbrush will clean a tooth nor a gum-line. 

To dissect Philips marketing statement a little…

The most technical sounding words in that statement are: amplitude, frequency, dynamic, resonating, dentin, and interproximal.  The first four are technical terms that they took from engineering, I can talk about those, the last two are medical anatomy terms which are out of my field, so I can’t really comment on them deeply.  By amplitude all that they are referring to is the distance that the vibrations move the bristles, frequency refers to the speed of the vibration (or wave), nothing more and nothing less than that.  Modifying amplitude and frequency with the word ‘high’ is completely meaningless in this situation.  A high amplitude tooth cleaning would be the distance that you move your manual toothbrush (maybe a half-inch or an inch), now lets see the vibrating toothbrush move itself at that high an amplitude!  If it did move that much, it would probably break your teeth!  Although those words do have technical meanings, Philips’ use of those words is completely meaningless!  Dynamic means that a situation is changing, and the technical meaning of resonate has nothing to do with the toothbrushes and so I don’t want to get into that concept right now.  Their use of dynamic just means that the bristles move (or vibrate), that is all that Philips means, nothing more.  Didn’t you already know that the toothbrush vibrates?  Did you need to be informed that it vibrates a second time with a different wording?  Did that redundancy give you more information?  Calling the toothbrush dynamic was worthless uninformative (and therefore meaningless) redundancy!  It was nothing but hype!  The resonating word has no meaning to speak of that applies to these toothbrushes, meaningless.  The anatomical words dentin and interproximal are beyond my field, but I am confident that they are only on Philips’ toothbrush web site to dazzle and romance you with more technical sounding terminology, and not on the web site in order to educate you about anatomy and keeping it clean.

More juicy marketing from Philips…

Oooh, look! How enticing, Philips’ summaries of their scientific “studies”
online!  That is so impressive, sarcastically speaking.

“At a distance of 2 mm beyond-the-bristles, Sonicare removed on average 51.12% of the bacteria present in the biofilm after 5 seconds of exposure, while the Braun Oral-B 3D removed on average 17.49%.”

All of that is crap, possibly true and accurate, but crap none-the-less.  Maybe it is true that the vibrator removes 51% of the film when 2mm away from your teeth, BUT I BET THAT IT WOULD REMOVE CLOSER TO 100% IF YOU TOUCHED YOUR TEETH WITH THE BRISTLES!  Why would you choose to place the brush 2mm from your teeth when that would reduce the effectiveness to 51%, down from nearly 100% if it touches your teeth?  And if you want to argue that not making contact will probably reduce enamel loss while still being effective at removing film, then think of how effective your toothpaste will be without touching your teeth, and remember that this product is a brush and so not making contact defeats the fundamental purpose of the product!

On the mechanism…

If they want to make a nice device that cleans teeth by blowing air at them, then fine, prove that blowing air is an effective cleaning technique and then make a product that is meant to blow air.  Did you ever blow some dust off of a household item, did you teeth get clean too?  Toothbrushes don’t do that.  Toothbrushes brush teeth.

Philips marketing, ooooh, they have data…

Look at that, they say that a manual brush causes less wear than one of the vibrating toothbrushes.  That I am willing to believe.  Very little else on Philips’ toothbrush web site seems persuasive to me.

Philips markets the clincher to you…

Hey this is great! Philips offers a guarantee...

“[1]It’s a big leap—moving beyond the manual toothbrush to a power toothbrush with advanced technology. [2] We realize that it might seem extravagant, but we’re so sure that you will fall in love with your Sonicare [3] and the results that it delivers that we’re backing up our products with a No-Risk!”

You just can’t beat a product with a guarantee, right?  This seals the deal, right?  Well lets just see if we can beat it. 

This toothbrush web site is what is called, the hard-sell.  From their guarantee 1. “Big leap”, I guess that the c-note they are asking is a big leap.  “Advanced technology”, there is the true purpose of Philips’ marketing revealed explicitly, they want you to believe that their vibrator is more advanced than attaching a manual toothbrush to a vibrator from the adult toy shop with rubber bands!  I doubt it is more advanced and see nothing on their web site that convinces me otherwise.  2. “Extravagant”, yes asking for a c-note in exchange for a vibrator is extravagant if that’s what they mean.  “Fall in love”, as I said earlier marketers’ job is to romance you!  3. “Results that it delivers”, did they even promise a result at all?  I didn’t see any promises.

There is more hyperbole on that Philips toothbrush web site than I can fit in one message on this forum, look how long this brief exploration is.  That much hype is called a snow-job because they are just leaving people who buy that vibrator helpless out in the cold, buried in the snow, no promises fufilled.  Please don’t encourage their bad behaviors, psychologically pathological business owners consider your purchases to be proof that their marketing is correct.  Which just makes it harder for engineers to resist the demands of the owners to misbehave.  Philips doesn’t have the only hyped toothbrush, there are many more, beware.

On the mechanism…

Maybe a new cleaning technique could be more gentle on the teeth, helping our teeth to last 100 years, while still being effective at cleaning plaque.  But I am unconvinced that anyone has discovered it.  And for those who like a vibrator massage, go for it!  I just don’t want people to be confused into buying a vibrator, but thinking that they have a hi-tech toothbrush.

Excuse me for my language in this post, but that Philps web site was so very very bad, so much hype page after page!  It is really over-the-top for a simple vibrator with a timer.  Sorry to call-out your love there asanta, but for a c-note, it had to be done.

jump_in_the_pit - 22 December 2008 02:39 PM

Sorry to call-out your love there asanta, but for a c-note, it had to be done.

I think you misunderstood my comments. I have not read the hype about the toothbrushes, and that is not why I have mine. It is a vibrator with a timer. It reminds me to brush each quadrant of my mouth for 30 seconds. It helps me brush with a more effective technique than I was using with my manual brush. It is the lazy persons solution to brushing teeth. It also works well for my developmentally delayed brother in reminding him to brush for 2 minutes. His gums have gotten a lot better since we began to use the toothbrush. The timer is a concrete and simple method he can understand. I know that a manual brush used correctly is just as effective, but he is unable to learn that technique and the brush is a ($100)convenience for me.

It really just comes down to what matters….my gums are in great shape, and at 50(ahem) plus years, I still have all 32 of my teeth!

asanta - 22 December 2008 11:00 PM

It really just comes down to what matters….my gums are in great shape, and at 50(ahem) plus years, I still have all 32 of my teeth!

What a beautiful sounding dental record.    The discipline that the timer offers seems effective, very good for you.

jump_in_the_pit, ultrasonic cleaners do work and very well with little wear on the part and its environmentally sound because you don;t need chemicals. one other thing, a brush getting 2 mm beyond what you can brush is very good for between your teeth where the bristles don’t go.

macro820 - 28 December 2008 04:22 PM

jump_in_the_pit, ultrasonic cleaners do work and very well with little wear on the part and its environmentally sound because you don;t need chemicals. one other thing, a brush getting 2 mm beyond what you can brush is very good for between your teeth where the bristles don’t go.

I welcome your skepticism. 

What have you seen that convinced you that they clean well,
but with less wear than other methods, such as a brush?

You seem to be talking about those ultrasonic tubs meant for
cleaning manufactured parts or jewlery, aren’t you macro820?
But this thread is about the sonic toothbrushes, how do you
want span that gap from the tub of liquid over to the brush?
If the sonic toothbrush is practical at 2mm, and causing less
wear, then why bother keeping the bristles at all and instead
why not develop a cleaning tub for ones mouth?

To be realistic, unlike the advertisements: Neither the
cleaning tubs nor the toothbrush use “sound” to clean.  The tub
vibrates a liquid, lets fill the tub with water, that means
it makes water waves, the water molecules do the scrubbing.
The toothbrush vibrates air with lots of saliva around it,
vibrating air is not sound if the frequency is above 20KHz,
vibrating air is more generally called wind, the toothbrush
basically blows air, it is comparable to a fan.

I haven’t taken a close look at these cleaning devices, the
small amount of marketing that I’ve have seen is so over-hyped
(like that Philips web site) that I have not been inspired
to look further.  I am well aware of the welding, ranging,
and imaging abilities of ultrasound.  By the way, ultrasound
is a proper technical term, but also an oxymoron because that
ultra prefix means that it uses a frequency above human hearing,
despite that I use ultrasound because it is the standard term.
The sounds that these devices make (the buzzes and shrieks)
are a lower frequency and a side-effect.

If the sonic toothbrush cleans 2mm away, I’m willing to accept
Philips 2mm distance cleaning 51% effectively, but why is that
important?  How does proper manual technique compare, is proper
manual technique more effective than that 2mm effect?  How does
flossing compare to that 2mm effect, is that more effective?
It cleans where the bristles don’t go you say… those thin
bristles can reach deep between my teeth, I have had some
toothbrushes with longer bristles at the tip to help reach
deeper, I don’t know that the 2mm cleaning effect is better
or worse that that simple and cheap idea.

In short, I have yet to be convinced of the cleaning effect of
ultrasound, the industries that I know don’t use that cleaning
technique.  It might be valid and cause less wear, I’ll be happy
to hear if it does, but there is no excuse for the marketing
that I have seen, marketing generally as bad as the Philip’s
toothbrush web site.  So I chose to warn people to be skeptical
against the hyperbole and effectiveness of the mechanism.

All sales is about hyperbole. Bottled water manufacturer claim you need 8 glasses of water a day (for instance). I can’t think of ANY sales pitch I’ve seen anywhere that has not had a modicum of hyperbole. Sales is about sales is about money and increasing your bottom line, it is never about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
I like my toothbrush (it gives me a choice between soft,med and hard bristles—for your info), I did not buy into all of the hype, but it works for me and my family! You are not going to throw out all of your water because someone makes a ludicrous claim about needing 8 glasses a day, why would you completely close your mind to these tooth brushes because of some advertising hyperbole? If my dentist could immediately spot the difference, without being told I’d made a change, that must be SOMETHING positive about them. If you don’t want to buy one, don’t buy it, but I love mine, it works for me, and I’m keeping my ‘$100 convenience’, it’s well worth the price as far as I’m concerned (and has probably paid for itself in reduced dental bills as well).

I happened to receive a $200 Target gift card for Christmas. (I guess my family knows I spend way too much time shopping there! It’s right down the road…) The Sonic Care toothbrush (the basic one) was on special for about $15 off the regular price. So I thought about it:

- My dentist suggested an electric toothbrush.
- There was only one model for sale that did NOT have “sonic” in the name, and it looked cheap.
- Asanta gave it a great review.
- Reviews I read online were all extremely positive.
- It was “on sale”
- With the gift card, it was basically “free” to me

So I went ahead and got one, it had two brush heads so two people could share it. I charged it the required 24 hours and gave it a test. The result?

I LOVE IT! It is the most amazing toothbrush I’ve ever used. I swear my teeth are three shades whiter, it scrubbed the heck out of them. Not kidding. I had used those whitening strips in the past, and they did not make as much of a difference as one two-minute brushing with this toothbrush. All the coffee stains and diet pepsi stains were gone *poof* !

Then I had my son try it out with the extra brush head. I swear - his teeth are whiter as well. There is no way a seven-year-old could scrub well enough to do that thorough of a cleaning with manual brush, and he’d never brushed the entire two minutes. After a couple of days testing it, I went back and bought an additional brush head for my husband to share as well.

You know that feeling when you leave the dentist and your teeth are so smooth, it’s like running your tongue over a strand of pearls? It’s like that every day now. Really great.

So I suppose the “sonic technology” is a bunch of marketing fluff - but the end result is a brush that does vibrate so well it cleans the heck out of your teeth. I don’t think it’s damaging though, the bristles I got were very soft. They should drop the “sonic” label and just call it “the amazing vibrating toothbrush.”

And I love the timer! I have to confess, I don’t think I ever brushed my teeth the required two minutes prior to this toothbrush. I probably brushed only a minute. Not only does it have a timer, but the buzzing feels so good while brushing that when the timer is up and the brush shuts off, I’m kind of disappointed.

I give it five stars. Here are my shiny white teeth: 

About electric toothbrushes the Mayo clinic web site says:

“It’s possible to brush your teeth effectively with a
manual toothbrush. But an electric toothbrush can be a great
alternative to a manual toothbrush, especially if you have
arthritis or other conditions that make it difficult to brush
well. The bristle movement of an electric toothbrush might even
help you remove more plaque from your teeth and improve your
gum health. If you choose to invest in an electric toothbrush,
look for one that’s comfortable to hold and easy to use. A
rotating-oscillating head is best. Other specific features,
such as adjustable power levels, timers and rechargeable
batteries, are up to you. What’s most important is regular
brushing, whether you choose a manual toothbrush or an electric
toothbrush, and daily flossing.”

The ADA approves toothbrushes but I only see manuals
listed.  About powered toothbrushes they say:

“Is a powered toothbrush better than a manual?

“Both manual and powered toothbrushes can effectively and
thoroughly clean your teeth. Children may find that brushing
with a powered toothbrush is fun. Persons who have difficulty
using a manual toothbrush may find a powered toothbrush easier
to use or more comfortable. Whether you decide on manual or
powered, choose a toothbrush that you like and find easy to
use, so that you’ll use it twice a day to thoroughly clean
all the surfaces of your teeth.”

asanta, I didn’t say “$100 convenience”, did say, “It might
be valid and cause less wear, I’ll be happy to hear if it
does, ...”, I and didn’t mean to upset you.  I was criticising
Philips, not you.  I only tried to comfort you. 

No, I’m not that prickly , .... I referred to my as a $100.00 convenience, and to be honest, you couldn’t get me (or my family) to go back to a manual toothbrush for any amount of money (well….maybe a million pounds or euros)! I was just pointing out that ALL advertising is hype!