logo
Setting new standards for oral hygiene
brushbig
The foundation of dentistry is the management of the biofilm. Now you can eradicate the biofilm before it causes any problems.
brushbig
Preventive oral care at home and by dental industry aims to control the biofilm. Biofilm is the biggest factor causing decays and gum disease.

A lot of resources has been spent on developing vaccicines against S.mutans (caries) but mechanichal cleaning opportunities has been overlooked.

With our product
Brush3000
Use ultrasound both at home or at dental office. More efficient and a better accuracy.
Patent pending
Savings in time and money
Better oral health. No operator dependent issues.
Great oral hygiene reduces the risk of gum disease and decays
Repetitive results by a push of a button
Cleans also around dental implants and under dental bridges
No more complex rituals of flossing and brushing
Multiple energy and frequency levels from eradicating the biofilm up to breaking down tartar
Safe and quiet. Same results every time
Patent pending
02-transparent
Combines two ordinary and proven technologies
01 When mouthpiece set on it's place a vacuum is created. It attaches around the dental arch as a suction cup.
02 Ultrasonic bath is used to clean dental instruments. (When removing a blood stain it’s 1000 more effective in cleaning when compared to manual scrubbing).
Cleaning process
1
Take the tray/mouthpiece
Push it on it’s place
2
3
Push the button: suction starts and the tray tightens on its place
Then water will fill the tray automatically and cleaning cycle begins
4
5
Cavitation starts
Wow! All done, your teeth all clean and healthy
6
Contact for licensing the technology:
Send message
Get notified about news in development process
Construction
ConstructionImage ConstructionImage
5
Brush 3000
construction-transparent
group-25
tank
Global
oral care market 2023
$43
Billion
Global
dental industry market 2023
$60
Billion
World
population 2023
7.85
Billion
Why Brush3000 is a concept that works – a quick glance at the literature
Acoustic removal of biofilms with or even without cavitation in aqueous solutions has been proven as an advantageous method for eradicating biofilms.

During ultrasonic scaling the cavitation in the end of the ultrasonic tip helps in disrupting the biofilm. Ultrasonic scalers are used daily in the dental practices by dentists and dental hygienists. Nina V. et al. suggest that in future no-contact ultrasonic scaler tips may be developed (1). While invention is not a scaler tip it has a lot of merits of the invention that researchers are looking for.

Nina V. et al. have provided further research on scaler tips in non-contact mode disrupting biofilms in complex materials to suggest that it may be viable to be used in peri-implantitis and perimucositis (for inflammation around dental implants) (2)

Also Burleson A. et al. showed proof that cavitation provides great advantages in extremely difficult places such as inside of a tooth providing significantly greater results in cleanliness while using ultrasound. In vivo, prospective, randomized, single-blinded study histologically compared biofilm/necrotic debridement efficiency for human mandibular molars showed showed cleanliness of 91% with 1 min ultrasonic treatment compared to 45% for group without ultrasonic treatment, in 3-mm depth. The teeth in both groups were obturated first with hand and rotary files. (3)

While not directly comparable, removal of bacterial biofilm from water filled tubes using axially propagated ultrasound was proven efficient by (Mott, I.E.C. et al.). The result was comparable to conventional ultrasonic bath. While the composition of bacteria in the said tubes were different, it still provides further proof of the efficacy of the ultrasound (4)

Nishikawa T, et al. demonstrated in his study that ultrasonic wave exposure in a non-contact mode effectively removed adherent biofilms composed of S. mutans in vitro. (5)

Patrícia Costa Cruz et al. showed that when cleaning dentures with ultrasonic cleaner even without alkaline agent was superior over brushing the dentures with water. (6)

To demonstrate the superior qualities of ultrasonic cleaning over other methods. When removing blood from contaminated dental instruments decontamination in an ultrasonic cleaner was more effective than hand washing, resulting in greater than a 100-fold reduction of blood contamination. (7)

Further Discussion

Periodontal disease is associated with heart disease, stomach ulcers and ulcers on feet with people suffering from Diabetes.

Is there anything else in common? Could there be?

As ulcers have many similarities to etiology of periodontal disease, they are historically treated in somewhat similar ways. Mechanical cleaning of the area leads to healing. With teeth this has been done by flossing and brushing and with feet ulcers surgical debridement and other debriding methods.

Low-Frequency Ultrasound Shown to Significantly Improve Healing of Leg Ulcers

Ultrasound has been utilizing in debriding the wound area with great success in healing process. The control group showed a mean decrease of 11% in the ulcerated area after 8 weeks, in the ultrasound group the mean ulcerated area decreased by 41% (p < 0.05) (12.)

This serves as the basis of the hypothesis that even without cavitation the biofilms are dispersed that is likely one of the maine cause for the healing. Various other benefits are described as well in the research that suggests that ultrasound should be utilized more often.

The results above were achieved using low frequency.

Are there any real reason why we should not apply ultrasonic cleaning in the oral cavity if the results elsewhere suggest that we should do it?

Taking it to the extreme

But if we make hypothesis that removing biofilms of dental surfaces requires less energy and exposure than extracorporeal lithotripsy, we may have an idea of how harmful it may be if we used extreme exposure and intensity.

Darzi A et. al concluded that the effects to soft tissues were minimal when using low dosage. Obviously we do not need to remove calculus from gall bladder with our device. (8.) If we look at the methods of utilizing piezoelectric shock-wave lithotripsy when removing salivary gland stones Iro H. et al. concluded that: “The piezoelectric lithotripsy of salivary stones caused no serious side effects which could be proven by clinical, biochemical, sonographic, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations.” (9.)

Now we have some idea of the potential problems. However, something even more comforting might be around the corner. Zips A et. al colonized a reverse osmosis membrane with fast adhering bacteria and were able to detach 95% of the bacteria utilizing 2W power without damaging the said membrane. (10.)

Obviously the bacteria were a monolayer and the structure of biofilm in oral cavity is different. But for me this confirms that acoustic pressure changes in aqueous solutions even without cavitation might be enough to eradicate most of the biofilms. If you wanted to remove calculus or tartar the risk of the soft tissue damage is potentially higher. But still likely something that is in the scope that we can manage.

Last, introducing fluid kinetics helps the detachment of the biofilms. Also, if the water is not degassed the air bubbles increase the removal of the biofilm as air bubbles in the water collide the biofilm. If we truly want to avoid the cavitation altogether. These applications are –to my best knowledge– also in the scope of the patent application I filed (11.).

  • 1. Vyas, N. et al. High Speed Imaging of Cavitation around Dental Ultrasonic Scaler Tips. Plos One. (2016).
  • 2. Vyas, N. et al. A quantitative method to measure biofilm removal efficiency from complex biomaterial surfaces using SEM and image analysis. (2016).
  • 3. Burleson, A. et al. The In Vivo Evaluation of Hand/Rotary/Ultrasound Instrumentation in Necrotic, Human Mandibular Molars. Journal of endodontics. 33(7),20071.
  • 3. Mott, I.E.C. et al. The removal of bacterial biofilm from water-filled tubes using axially propagated ultrasound. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 84(4),1998
  • 4. Nishikawa T, et al. A study of the efficacy of ultrasonic waves in removing biofilms Gerodontology. 27(3),2010.
  • 5. P. C. Cruz et al. The effectiveness of chemical denture cleansers and ultrasonic device in biofilm removal from complete dentures J. Appl. Oral Sci. 19(6), 2011
  • 6. Carfuny Wa., Effectiveness of ultrasonic cleaning of dental instruments. Am J Dent. 8(3),1995
  • 8. Gut. 1990 Oct;31(10):1110-4. Piezoelectric lithotripsy and soft tissue injury. Safety limits in the experimental and clinical setting. Darzi A(1), Reid I, Kay E, Monson JR, Tanner WA, Keane FB.
  • 9. Laryngoscope. 1992 May;102(5):492-4. Extracorporeal piezoelectric shock-wave lithotripsy of salivary gland stones. Iro H(1), Waitz G, Nitsche N, Benninger J, Schneider T, Ell C.
  • 10. A Zips , G Schaule & H C Flemming (1990) Ultrasound as a means of detaching biofilms, Biofouling: The Journal of Bioadhesion and Biofilm Research, 2:4,323-333
  • 11. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2006 Sep 1;52(1):39-46. Epub 2006 Jun 23. Dynamic removal of oral biofilms by bubbles. Michael R Parini, William G Pitt (2006).
  • 12. Wound Repair Regen. 1997 Jan-Mar;5(1):18-22. Low-frequency ultrasound treatment of chronic venous ulcers. Weichenthal M1, Mohr P, Stegmann W, Breitbart EW.
logo
Brush300, 2018, All rights reserved