I discovered the “Tromatz” bioelectric wave toothbrush, and it sounds too good to be true, which usually means… it is. However, they do link to some journal articles, so it seems it’s somewhat based on fact. There’s very, very little else out there aside from their own website that I can find. Thoughts from anyone familiar with the field? Is this the next evolution of oral care?
More at their website.
There’s very, very little else out there aside from their own website that I can find.
This is a strong clue
Agreed, which is why I was looking for confirmation.
Using bioelectric microcurrent waves to disturb the biological metabolic reaction and structure of bacteria that forms an impenetrable biofilm
Well, it certainly sounds like jargon designed to obfuscate the actual process. At a minimum they’re relying on scientific opacity to render a buyer “convinced because it sounds smart”.
I’m always skeptical of these things. Anything that can truly destroy the biological elements that make up plaque bacteria will also likely destroy the cells in your gums. So you’re left with either a very mild human-cells safe process that is so mild that it also does little to nothing to the other things, or you actually have a dangerous process that is also dangerous to your human cells. Like drinking bleach to cure COVID… I’d rather that, if they are doing anything at all here, it’s entirely placebo (beyond the usual brushing effects).
This is an excellent point. Thank you. Seems safe to call this one snake oil for sure!
“The new TROMATZWAVE® technology uses a hybrid electrostatic force, simultaneously imposing both AC and DC on a micro frequency of 0.7 V to disturb the electric charges and subsequently break the EPS barrier”
This is mostly gibberish, especially the part where they describe a frequency in volts. (Completely incorrect)
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.
Based just on the name even, snake oil. WTF is a “bioelectric wave”?
Oh man, someone send this to Mhedi at ElectroBoom! I want to see him make an AC toothbrush!
This is the customer photo they decided to go with. Just look at those nails 🤢
That should tell you everything you need to know, but if you still aren’t sure, it’s snake oil.
