Mouthwashes get a bad rap — scientists found one that lets good bacteria flourish
While mouthwash is widely regarded as an excellent weapon against gum disease, it has the unfortunate tendency of wiping out all of the good bacteria with the bad.
But a recent study — published in Frontiers in Oral Health — says it doesn't have to be this way.
Advertisement
Researchers have found a mouthwash — a natural one, at that — that seems to kill off nasty germs while nurturing friendly microbes.
IC Production – stock.adobe.com
Researchers have found a mouthwash — a natural one, at that — that seems to kill off nasty germs while nurturing friendly microbes.
'It's a paradigm shift,' Georgios Kotsakis, assistant dean for clinical research at Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, said in a press release.
Advertisement
'We're moving from eradicating all bacteria to focusing on selectivity. We want to keep the good bacteria alive while targeting the bad.'
Researchers pitted a natural rinse called StellaLife VEGA Oral Care against two common mouthwashes — prescription-strength chlorhexidine and Listerine Cool Mint.
The herbal option slashed levels of harmful bacteria like Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis, but spared helpful microbes such as Streptococcus oralis and Veillonella parvula.
'These good bacteria have important functions,' Kotsakis said. 'They synergize with your tissues. They actually kill some of the bad bacteria themselves.'
Advertisement
Researchers pitted a natural rinse called StellaLife VEGA Oral Care against two common mouthwashes — prescription-strength chlorhexidine and Listerine Cool Mint.
StellaLife
In contrast, both Listerine and chlorhexidine nuked all of the bacteria, with chlorhexidine decimating some beneficial bacteria by a staggering million-fold.
Kotsakis said next steps would involve moving to clinical trials.
Advertisement
The findings are refreshing in light of the fact that mouthwash has become a somewhat contentious topic, with even experts disagreeing on how beneficial — or necessary — it is.
Kotsakis himself has a pretty balanced perspective on the issue.
'If you're brushing and flossing like a dentist — regularly and perfectly — you may not need a mouthwash, but in reality, even the best of us can miss some surfaces during cleaning at home.'
While the Mayo Clinic recommends using mouthwash after brushing and flossing, UK dental surgeon Shaadi Manouchehri suggests doing it the other way around.
'I used to use mouthwash after I brushed my teeth, and this is the worst thing you can do,' she said in a TikTok video that launched quite a debate.
'If you use mouthwash straight after, that's rinsing away the protective fluoride layer [the toothpaste provides], and it's going to make your teeth more susceptible to getting cavities.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Mouthwashes get a bad rap — scientists found one that lets good bacteria flourish
Gum and get it. While mouthwash is widely regarded as an excellent weapon against gum disease, it has the unfortunate tendency of wiping out all of the good bacteria with the bad. But a recent study — published in Frontiers in Oral Health — says it doesn't have to be this way. Advertisement Researchers have found a mouthwash — a natural one, at that — that seems to kill off nasty germs while nurturing friendly microbes. IC Production – Researchers have found a mouthwash — a natural one, at that — that seems to kill off nasty germs while nurturing friendly microbes. 'It's a paradigm shift,' Georgios Kotsakis, assistant dean for clinical research at Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, said in a press release. Advertisement 'We're moving from eradicating all bacteria to focusing on selectivity. We want to keep the good bacteria alive while targeting the bad.' Researchers pitted a natural rinse called StellaLife VEGA Oral Care against two common mouthwashes — prescription-strength chlorhexidine and Listerine Cool Mint. The herbal option slashed levels of harmful bacteria like Fusobacterium nucleatum and Porphyromonas gingivalis, but spared helpful microbes such as Streptococcus oralis and Veillonella parvula. 'These good bacteria have important functions,' Kotsakis said. 'They synergize with your tissues. They actually kill some of the bad bacteria themselves.' Advertisement Researchers pitted a natural rinse called StellaLife VEGA Oral Care against two common mouthwashes — prescription-strength chlorhexidine and Listerine Cool Mint. StellaLife In contrast, both Listerine and chlorhexidine nuked all of the bacteria, with chlorhexidine decimating some beneficial bacteria by a staggering million-fold. Kotsakis said next steps would involve moving to clinical trials. Advertisement The findings are refreshing in light of the fact that mouthwash has become a somewhat contentious topic, with even experts disagreeing on how beneficial — or necessary — it is. Kotsakis himself has a pretty balanced perspective on the issue. 'If you're brushing and flossing like a dentist — regularly and perfectly — you may not need a mouthwash, but in reality, even the best of us can miss some surfaces during cleaning at home.' While the Mayo Clinic recommends using mouthwash after brushing and flossing, UK dental surgeon Shaadi Manouchehri suggests doing it the other way around. 'I used to use mouthwash after I brushed my teeth, and this is the worst thing you can do,' she said in a TikTok video that launched quite a debate. 'If you use mouthwash straight after, that's rinsing away the protective fluoride layer [the toothpaste provides], and it's going to make your teeth more susceptible to getting cavities.'
Gizmodo
24-06-2025
- Gizmodo
How Prehistoric Mammoth Tusks Could Help Bust Modern-Day Ivory Smugglers
Selling elephant ivory—a hard white material from elephant tusks, for which elephants are often killed—is illegal. Selling ivory collected from the remains of extinct Mammoths, however, is—somehow—not. Because the two are hard to tell apart, illegal traders are slipping under the radar by mixing elephant ivory with legally traded mammoth ivory. A new forensic tool, however, might soon put an end to this nefarious trick. Wildlife forensic scientists in China suggest that authorities can differentiate elephant ivory from mammoth ivory by analyzing stable isotopes (forms of an element that don't break down over time). If this approach becomes widely adopted, it could serve as a quick sample screening before the application of more expensive and time-consuming methods. 'Mammoth ivory costs a fraction of the price of elephant ivory, but the two are considered completely different materials by carvers and experts, because mammoth ivory usually lacks the deep, creamy white color of elephant ivory,' Pavel Toropov, a University of Hong Kong researcher and a co-author of the study published today in the journal Frontiers, said in a Frontiers statement. 'One trader compared them to a 'Lamborghini and a Ford.' Mammoth ivory cannot be a real substitute for elephant ivory, but its value may lie in providing a legal cover for elephant ivory.' Currently, the most accurate way to tell the two ivories apart is via molecular analysis (studying molecules) or radiocarbon dating (a technique to date organic material), both of which are expensive and time consuming. Isotope ratios vary depending on factors like environment. Since Ice Age mammoths preserved in high-latitude Siberian permafrost lived in a completely different habitat from today's tropical elephants, the isotope ratios in their tusks should be different. Within this context, Toropov and his team decided to investigate whether analyzing these differences could provide a better method to distinguish between the two types of ivory. The team conducted stable isotope analyses on 44 pieces of elephant ivory and 35 pieces of mammoth ivory, specifically studying the stable isotope ratios of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur. While this approach revealed notable overlap for carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur isotope ratios between the two ivories, the researchers documented very little overlap in the elephant and mammoth isotope ratios for oxygen and none for hydrogen. 'This is because the elements of water drunk by mammoths in high-latitude regions such as Siberia have distinct isotope signatures compared to the elements of the water ingested by elephants in tropical latitudes,' explained first author Maria Santos, also a researcher from the University of Hong Kong. Simply put, analyzing the stable isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in a suspected ivory object is an effective way to determine whether it came from an elephant or a mammoth. While more research is needed before this approach can be used in a court case, 'we hope that the protocol described in our study will be applied to screen large batches of supposedly mammoth ivory objects,' Santos added. 'Samples that have an isotopic signature of elephant ivory can then be tested with more expensive and time-consuming methods, such as radiocarbon dating. This could help combat the illegal ivory trade more effectively and close the potential laundering loophole.' The way I see it, there's an even simpler solution: Make all ivory illegal.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Yahoo
These AI chatbot questions cause most carbon emissions, scientists find
Queries requiring AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT to think logically and reason produce more carbon emissions than other types of questions, according to a new study. Every query typed into a large language model like ChatGPT requires energy and leads to carbon dioxide emissions. The emission levels depend on the chatbot, the user, and the subject matter, researchers at Germany's Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences say. The study, published in the journal Frontiers, compares 14 AI models and finds that answers requiring complex reasoning cause more carbon emissions than simple answers. Queries needing lengthy reasoning, like abstract algebra or philosophy, cause up to six times greater emissions than more straightforward subjects like high school history. Researchers recommend that frequent users of AI chatbots adjust the kind of questions they pose to limit carbon emissions. The study assesses as many as 14 LLMs on 1,000 standardised questions across subjects to compare their carbon emissions. 'The environmental impact of questioning trained LLMs is strongly determined by their reasoning approach, with explicit reasoning processes significantly driving up energy consumption and carbon emissions," study author Maximilian Dauner says. 'We found that reasoning-enabled models produced up to 50 times more carbon dioxide emissions than concise response models.' When a user puts a question to an AI chatbot, words or parts of words in the query are converted into a string of numbers and processed by the model. This conversion and other computing processes of the AI produce carbon emissions. The study notes that reasoning models on average create 543.5 tokens per question while concise models require only 40. 'A higher token footprint always means higher CO2 emissions,' it says. For instance, one of the most accurate models is Cogito which reaches about 85 per cent accuracy. It produces three times more carbon emissions than similarly sized models that provide concise answers. "Currently, we see a clear accuracy-sustainability trade-off inherent in LLM technologies," Dr Dauner says. "None of the models that kept emissions below 500 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent achieved higher than 80 per cent accuracy on answering the 1,000 questions correctly.' Carbon dioxide equivalent is a unit for measuring the climate change impact of various greenhouse gases. Researchers hope the new findings will cause people to make more informed decisions about their AI use. Citing an example, researchers say queries seeking DeepSeek R1 chatbot to answer 600,000 questions may create carbon emissions equal to a round-trip flight from London to New York. In comparison, Alibaba Cloud's Qwen 2.5 can answer more than three times as many questions with similar accuracy rates while generating the same emissions. "Users can significantly reduce emissions by prompting AI to generate concise answers or limiting the use of high-capacity models to tasks that genuinely require that power," Dr Dauner says. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
