Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnyzee | Hacker News Reader

The tone of the article is for some reason very dismissive and derisive of alternatives to plain dental hygiene. As you point out, if a simple supplement in the form of harmless bacteria could improve caries reduction by even a small amount, it seems it would be a valuable option.

There is an existing 'probiotic' that has been around for years and works the same way, and promises the same benefits, as the one described in the article, it is called Streptococcus salivarius M18, there are quite a few studies that indicate it does work to some extent [1]. You get them in the form of lozenges that you put in the mouth while sleeping and they dissolve by themselves, so not a very invasive treatment if one wanted to use it.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Streptococcus+salivarius+M18

View on HN

The claim of the headline is also not supported by the evidence shared in the article. As just one example, the article notes that many different strains of bacteria are responsible for caries. This fact doesn't necessarily say anything about the effectiveness of Lantern's treatments - although it might shed light on the mechanisms that make it effe tive (or not).

That's what the clinical trials and studies on the early adopters are for. There's lots of interesting commentary on the early research, such as Scott Alexander's write-up, that are much better than this article.

> The tone of the article is for some reason very dismissive and derisive of alternatives to plain dental hygiene.

Yeah, emphasis on "plain". It's proposed as an addition, not an alternative, to conventonal tooth brushing.

Streptococcus salivarius M18 seems also interesting, but its results in preventing caries are much more limited, from what I can tell. It also has be taken continuously (once per day), instead being a one-time application like BCS3-L1.

> The tone of the article is for some reason very dismissive and derisive of alternatives to plain dental hygiene.

Putting my conspiracy theory hat on, the dental hygiene industry in the US is for-profit, like the pharmaceutical, and would rather sell you a treatment than a cure.

I tried to have a dialog with my child's dentist about nano-hydroxyapatite. I was interested in their thoughts about it, not as a replacement for fluoride based therapies, but in addition to them. Rather than having a discussion about the merits of both treatments or discussing any concerns about compatibility, the dentist adopted an attitude that was belittling and made me feel like I was an anti-vaxer. The suggested we could just not do any fluoride therapies at all.

It was very odd and alarming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com