Toothpaste made with keratin may protect and repair damaged teeth: study

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Language, Naming, and Headline Framing

  • Several comments dissect the wordplay (“natural root to repair teeth”) and find it confusing despite the dental pun.
  • Long subthread on compound nouns (“toothpaste,” “tomato paste,” “baby oil,” “coffee cake,” “Windows Subsystem for Linux”) showing how English allows many X–Y relationships (“made of,” “for,” “used on,” etc.).
  • Some joke that this should really be “hairpaste for teeth” or “toothhairpaste.”
  • A few note “made from hair” is technically accurate (keratin from wool/hair), but feels like clickbait and implies human hair to many readers.

What the Keratin Paste Likely Does

  • Multiple readers point out the article’s wording (“enamel-mimicking,” “protective coating”) suggests a coating that structurally mimics enamel, not full regrowth of lost enamel.
  • Comparison is made to Novamin and similar products that form a mineral layer, reduce sensitivity, and aid remineralization but don’t rebuild large defects.

Comparisons to Existing Tooth Products

  • Long discussion of:
    • Fluoride toothpastes and prescription high‑fluoride rinses/pastes (e.g., Prevident) for remineralization.
    • Novamin (bioglass) with mixed evidence; some users report clear sensitivity relief, others cite reviews saying clinical support is weak so far.
    • Nano‑hydroxyapatite (nHA) pastes and tablets: praise from users and some cited studies; issues include cost, particle shape safety (rod vs needle), concentration (often 1–2% vs ~10% in studies), and abrasivity (RDA values).
  • Some believe US regulators and professional bodies under‑promote nHA/Novamin for economic reasons; others push back or remain agnostic.

Evidence, Hype, and Timelines

  • Multiple commenters are skeptical of “X repairs enamel” stories, noting similar promises in past decades that never reached mainstream clinical use.
  • The “2–3 years to market” claim is viewed as optimistic; people question regulatory requirements and whether it will end up as a properly tested medicine or just supplement‑style cosmetics.
  • One commenter mistakenly claims chipped teeth “healed” fully; others correct that enamel doesn’t regenerate in bulk, though minor smoothing and remineralization occur.

Broader Context, Evolution, and Safety Claims

  • Debate over historical dental health: diet (sugar/starch) and lifespan vs modern care; conflicting citations and strong opinions on whether today’s teeth are “best ever.”
  • One thread argues evolution would already have exploited keratin on teeth if it were strongly advantageous; another counters that tooth decay mostly affects older, post‑reproductive ages and modern diets, so selection pressure was weaker.
  • Fringe claims appear (e.g., fluoride “calcifies the pineal gland,” all pastes are inherently destructive abrasives, baking soda/oil pulling as alternatives), presented without supporting evidence and not broadly endorsed in the thread.