Teeth whitening products?

[Melissa Whitson]

Currently searching for a teeth whitening product for my salon, but sooo much choice and variation that I could do with some assitance. I used the crest strips from america but cant get here :twisted: and clients are always asking me for suggestions on products so may aswel be able to sell something to them

I dont want to do in-salon treatments or get a dentist in coz costs are too high, just something customers can take home and use but thats safe and does what it says it will do for around 40-50quid.

I have ordered a few different products to try but if anyone has suggestions id love to hear!

Mel xx

 

[Velveteen]

I did respond but the post was removed?

All I did was to check the legality of what you propose to do as my understanding is that the practice is illegal in the UK for non dentists to perform this procedure or supply the products to others.

 

[geeg]

Personally I and many dentists are totally against this practice. Every time you try to whiten the enamel on teeth you remove some of it .. God knows the problems there will be down the road for those who continually do this process, a generation with full sets of falsies or veneers to cover up the damage, is my guess.

Teeth are teeth .. they are meant to be the colour they are. Stains can be removed other ways that don't destroy enamel.

this is my considered opinion based on much research and talk with dentists who care about the health of their patients' teeth more than their money.

 

[suze79]

Currently searching for a teeth whitening product for my salon, but sooo much choice and variation that I could do with some assitance. I used the crest strips from america but cant get here :twisted: and clients are always asking me for suggestions on products so may aswel be able to sell something to them

I dont want to do in-salon treatments or get a dentist in coz costs are too high, just something customers can take home and use but thats safe and does what it says it will do for around 40-50quid.

I have ordered a few different products to try but if anyone has suggestions id love to hear!

Mel xx

hi mel

there is a new teeth whitening (" cosmetic stain removal") system specially developed for salons and spa's. Its non invasive so the therapist is not touching the client. Its a 20 min process and the client is left with teeth 3-6 shades lighter. The main difference is that the hydrogen peroxide has been stabilised and pre mixed into a gum shield, so that there is even distribution of the peroxide. The new way causes little or no sensitivity, which can not be said for other tooth whitening systems. I know that they also have a range of retail products too.

 

[collin]

Teeth are teeth .. they are meant to be the colour they are.

OMG if that were the case then there would be no coloured nails,no dyed or bleached hair and no spray tans......wouldn't we all be working the tills in Asda or B&Q then :hug:

 

[geeg]

OMG if that were the case then there would be no coloured nails,no dyed or bleached hair and no spray tans......wouldn't we all be working the tills in Asda or B&Q then :hug:

If you'll excuse my being blunt, that is just a silly argument ............. neither hair colour nor bleach nor coloured nail enamel nor spray tans (so I'M told) cause the same sort of damage as teeth bleaching does to the enamel of the teeth. Your teeth do not renew themselves on a regular basis like hair and nails and skin either. I have seen the evidence of the damage that teeth whitening does so please don't treat me as if I am expressing some silly opinion ... it is absolute fact. Whether people want to take the risks of damage that whitening causes is up to them.

People banged on for years that sun beds absolutely didn't cause skin cancer .... they now have absolute proof that they can. I wonder if those who have it, had they had a warning, would still have over-done the sun beds as they clearly did??

 

[Velveteen]

Speak for yourself Collin. Not all of us are destined for Asda!
You do have a point but, alas, it is moot.
I checked today and the practice is indeed illegal in the UK for non dentists to carry out the tooth whitening procedure and/or supplying the product to do so.

The reason I remembered this is because a beauty therapist in Australia was successfully tried and convicted for tooth whitening as the court deemed it constituted practicing dentistry. Our professional association (APAA) sent us updates last year about this which included similar regulations in other countries of which the UK was one.

There are also legal ramifications for this site if it is shown to be promoting or condoning same.

So girls, unless you are dentists, don't do it. It's illegal.

 

[collin]

If you'll excuse my being blunt, that is just a silly argument ............. neither hair colour nor bleach nor coloured nail enamel nor spray tans (so I'M told) cause the same sort of damage as teeth bleaching does to the enamel of the teeth. Your teeth do not renew themselves on a regular basis like hair and nails and skin either. I have seen the evidence of the damage that teeth whitening does so please don't treat me as if I am expressing some silly opinion ... it is absolute fact. Whether people want to take the risks of damage that whitening causes is up to them.

People banged on for years that sun beds absolutely didn't cause skin cancer .... they now have absolute proof that they can. I wonder if those who have it, had they had a warning, would still have over-done the sun beds as they clearly did??

forgive me for being blunt also however not all teeth whitening systems cause damage.... there has been considerable improvement in manufactured systems and methods of undertaking such treatments over the last few years and they have come on considerably...these improvements being driven by changes in legislation or simply that the manufacturers of the equipment have taken a more responsible approach to things.

Making such global statement's that they all do is simply not correct.

We all know that slating manufacturers is not only against site rules but is also unnecessary and inappropriate...as you yourself quiet rightly pointed out recently before closing a thread.

I am not of course suggesting for a moment that you have done so however by slating a treatment this is effectively doing the same thing ......to those manufacturers that produce the equipment....

Adverse comments on procedures such as the ones on this posting is doing just that and banding all the different manufacturers of this type of equipment into one category and worse still banding them together with those in this industry that are active within the sun bed industry which has absolutely nothing to do with teeth whitening whatsoever.

As with anything there are good and bad manufacturers some are responsible and unfortunately some are not not only in terms of what they manufacture but in terms of who they allow to use such devices on whome and how often....back to the sunbed connection point.

Isn't it about time that we all ....(as professionals working within the same sector.)..have a tad respect for those that undertake treatments or manufacture products that allow such treatments to be undertaken by suitably trained and qualified therapists that perhaps we as individuals may not necessarily agree with....need I mention ear candling,tanning injections,botox misuse and so on.

Now I am neither endorsing or condoning this treatment however I do feel it important that we show at least some respect to our fellow professionals.

Obviously if the treatment or procedures are banned that's a whole different ball game :wink2:

 

[geeg]

For gods sake, I have not been disrespectful of any particular brand or treatment ... stop going so over the top. To whiten teeth that are normally ivory coloured requires that you destroy enamel ... PERIOD. More than a few Respected dentists have ASSURED ME OF THIS FACT. It stands to reason in fact.

Removing surface stains i(from tea, coffee, smoking etc) is another thing altogether ... an entirely different scenario. Lets get a grip and understand that we are talking about 2 different things.

If it's illegal to do the former then why argue the point. If it's not illegal to do the latter then we can all do what we choose.

 

[collin]

For gods sake, I have not been disrespectful of any particular brand or treatment ... stop going so over the top. To whiten teeth that are normally ivory coloured requires that you destroy enamel ... PERIOD. More than a few Respected dentists have ASSURED ME OF THIS FACT. It stands to reason in fact.

Removing surface stains i(from tea, coffee, smoking etc) is another thing altogether ... an entirely different scenario. Lets get a grip and understand that we are talking about 2 different things.

If it's illegal to do the former then why argue the point. If it's not illegal to do the latter then we can all do what we choose.

I figure Mel in her posted question is referring to products that ..well whiten teeth..by removing stains (tea,coffee,smoking etc) as she is searching for products to retail her customers for them to use at home ..such devices would not be effective in re toning the enamel as such.

On the respected dentist observations on this subject (and not unlike those observations made by some GP's in so far as the healing capabilities of holistic is concerned .)..could this simply be,to a certain degree in some cases,a self preservation thing as they charge in the order of £400 a pop for whitening teeth :wink2:

Picking up on Velveteens point...yes teeth whitening,as it used to be through the ingredients previously used are indeed banned here in the UK.....however there is a new tranche of systems now available that operate in a complete different manner and utilize completely different ingredients and are not banned.....not sure about OZ but most certainly here in the UK and the U.S.

Like it or not....teeth whitening treatments are here to stay and the stats show it is a growing income revenue generator within the beauty industry...why...because dentists charge up to £400 a pop for something that a trained beauty therapist can do for between £100 and £150

HTH:hug:

 

[geeg]

I figure Mel in her posted question is referring to products that ..well whiten teeth..by removing stains (tea,coffee,smoking etc) as she is searching for products to retail her customers for them to use at home ..such devices would not be effective in re toning the enamel as such.

On the respected dentist observations on this subject (and not unlike those observations made by some GP's in so far as the healing capabilities of holistic is concerned .)..could this simply be,to a certain degree in some cases,a self preservation thing as they charge in the order of £400 a pop for whitening teeth :wink2:

Picking up on Velveteens point...yes teeth whitening,as it used to be through the ingredients previously used are indeed banned here in the UK.....however there is a new tranche of systems now available that operate in a complete different manner and utilize completely different ingredients and are not banned.....not sure about OZ but most certainly here in the UK and the U.S.

Like it or not....teeth whitening treatments are here to stay and the stats show it is a growing income revenue generator within the beauty industry...why...because dentists charge up to £400 a pop for something that a trained beauty therapist can do for between £100 and £150

HTH:hug:

No .. what beauty therapist may be able do is not the SAME AT ALL AS THAT WHICH A dentist does.

 

[collin]

No .. what beauty therapist may be able do is not the SAME AT ALL AS THAT WHICH A dentist does.

I would not entirely agree there....teeth whitening isn't my bag however if the procedures are within the legislation that governs them and that the therapist if fully educated and competent then this treatment could potentially offer a good revenue stream to those that do decide to participate and derive an income from offering such a service to the consumer (which time and time again is being asked of them )which in turn feeds their families from within a sector which also contributes immensely into the countries wealth not only through taxes generated for good old Gordon Brown to reinvest into our roads (does he do that still)but through also keeping people employed...our industry...the beauty industry which is one of the few growing sectors left in our countries economy:hug:

 

[geeg]

Collin carry on pontificating ... I'm done here and said what needs to be said.

 

[collin]

Collin carry on pontificating ... I'm done here and said what needs to be said.

LOL well as long as your now done we can now at long last return to dealing with the issues as posted and realy look at the issues raised from there on in :hug:

 

[Melissa Whitson]

Nice little discussion going on there!!! So many factors can be brought to the table on this matter from botox or cosmetic surgey to smoking a cigarette or having a glass of wine....We dont know long term effects of any of the daily habits or consumables we dabble in and at the end of the day from what ive found most products in the tooth whitening space contain the same ingredients in retail products as what dental professionals use but mostly in lower concentrations for home use!

Anyway thanks for the feedback... will let you know what i get my hands on!

 

[Velveteen]

Just because something that has been deemed safe and effective does not mean it doesn't damage. And 'effective' is a very subjective term

Tooth whitening, by its very definition, is the process of bleaching and, as we all know, bleaching is the act of stripping colour from an object and does so by altering its structure. So, in essence, it is a damaging process. How that damage is controlled rests with the person carrying out the treatment and, to this end, particular standards apply.

The sticking point here (as with all treatments) is to assess whether it's effective and safe. Research and development has no doubt improved the materials that are available but whether they are safe depends much more on what's in the package.

For example, you can bleach your hair but normally people would go to a hairdresser in order to do it. But of those 'home jobs' that I've seen, while they look good, there are many things that have gone wrong with the process which an untrained eye will not see. And of course we've all read the newspaper articles where some poor soul has been burned or their hair has fallen out and wants to sue the pants of the manufacturer.

A responsible manufacturer avoids this scenario and supports the industry by ensuring it supplies to properly qualified people.

The same situation applies to nails. How many threads do you see in here that illustrate how badly a nail has been damaged with safe product? Because it's been used by an untrained hand, that's why.

And that's the sticking point here.

Irrespective of the legality of this situation, I believe that it is not in the Beauty Therapist's interest legally, financially or ethically to either offer the tooth whitening procedure or supply the product. The reason for this is because the training beauty therapists receive in both the UK and Australia in no way comes close to any type of medical standard expected of a registered medical practitioner. And why would it: we have vastly different occupations!

Tooth whitening is deemed to be a medical procedure due to where it is carried out, what it is being carried out on, its hidden complexities and it's direct consequence to quality of life should something go wrong. Not every person is a candidate for tooth whitening and the process can cause permanent and irreversible damage.

I don't buy the economy argument. Sending soldiers off to Afghanistan keeps people in work and feeds their families too. But at what cost?

And that's what people have to ask themselves rather than be mesmerised by the money sign. Because this is what this thread is really about. Money. Doesn't anyone ask themselves at what price do we pay for good and safe service? The bottom line for me is a person's life and anything that interferes with its quality for me as a beauty therapist is a no go zone. If I was a dermatologist, the boundaries would be different. But I'm not so they remain exactly where they are.

All arguments aside, I just have to wonder why, if tooth whitening isn't your bag, meaning that you don't know much about it, why you would comment on its efficacy? Further, if you profess not to know much about it, then I would also wonder why you would advocate non professional use? And frighteningly, the very fact that the original poster has not only demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on the subject, has provided examples completely divorced from the topic at hand as well as to completely ignore its illegal implications only cements my opinion on this matter.

So if we have this going on, why are we then lamenting the appalling standards currently present in our industry?

 

[geeg]

Just because something that has been deemed safe and effective does not mean it doesn't damage. And 'effective' is a very subjective term

Tooth whitening, by its very definition, is the process of bleaching and, as we all know, bleaching is the act of stripping colour from an object and does so by altering its structure. So, in essence, it is a damaging process. How that damage is controlled rests with the person carrying out the treatment and, to this end, particular standards apply.

The sticking point here (as with all treatments) is to assess whether it's effective and safe. Research and development has no doubt improved the materials that are available but whether they are safe depends much more on what's in the package.

For example, you can bleach your hair but normally people would go to a hairdresser in order to do it. But of those 'home jobs' that I've seen, while they look good, there are many things that have gone wrong with the process which an untrained eye will not see. And of course we've all read the newspaper articles where some poor soul has been burned or their hair has fallen out and wants to sue the pants of the manufacturer.

A responsible manufacturer avoids this scenario and supports the industry by ensuring it supplies to properly qualified people.

The same situation applies to nails. How many threads do you see in here that illustrate how badly a nail has been damaged with safe product? Because it's been used by an untrained hand, that's why.

And that's the sticking point here.

Irrespective of the legality of this situation, I believe that it is not in the Beauty Therapist's interest legally, financially or ethically to either offer the tooth whitening procedure or supply the product. The reason for this is because the training beauty therapists receive in both the UK and Australia in no way comes close to any type of medical standard expected of a registered medical practitioner. And why would it: we have vastly different occupations!

Tooth whitening is deemed to be a medical procedure due to where it is carried out, what it is being carried out on, its hidden complexities and it's direct consequence to quality of life should something go wrong. Not every person is a candidate for tooth whitening and the process can cause permanent and irreversible damage.

I don't buy the economy argument. Sending soldiers off to Afghanistan keeps people in work and feeds their families too. But at what cost?

And that's what people have to ask themselves rather than be mesmerised by the money sign. Because this is what this thread is really about. Money. Doesn't anyone ask themselves at what price do we pay for good and safe service? The bottom line for me is a person's life and anything that interferes with its quality for me as a beauty therapist is a no go zone. If I was a dermatologist, the boundaries would be different. But I'm not so they remain exactly where they are.



All arguments aside, I just have to wonder why, if tooth whitening isn't your bag, meaning that you don't know much about it, why you would comment on its efficacy? Further, if you profess not to know much about it, then I would also wonder why you would advocate non professional use? And frighteningly, the very fact that the original poster has not only demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on the subject, has provided examples completely divorced from the topic at hand as well as to completely ignore its illegal implications only cements my opinion on this matter.

So if we have this going on, why are we then lamenting the appalling standards currently present in our industry?

What a brilliant post, Velveteen absolutely brilliant. Sensible, informed, to the point and beautifully constructed. Lets hope you too don't get accused of not "dealing with the issues as posted, and those raised from here on in". Seems to me that you and I are the only two posters that actually raised any interesting issues in this thread.

Thank you for joining me in the voice of reason on this subject instead of just using a bunch of ill informed rhetoric to muddy the waters and to score cheap shots. If it's not your bag then why post on the subject at all?

As you so rightly said, in this elegant post, the ramifications of untrained individuals performing treatments on teeth could be dire and in fact will be dire. If an untrained person makes a mess of someones hair or nails at least they grow again. Teeth do not.

 

[collin]

All arguments aside, I just have to wonder why, if tooth whitening isn't your bag, meaning that you don't know much about it, why you would comment on its efficacy?

Just because this particular treatment "isnt my bag" why would it follow that I dont know much about it?...your assumption unfortunatley isnt correct im afraid :hug:

Ironing isnt my bag either but I know enough about it to either do it or discuss it:wink2:

 

[daisyl]

Just because something that has been deemed safe and effective does not mean it doesn't damage. And 'effective' is a very subjective term

Tooth whitening, by its very definition, is the process of bleaching and, as we all know, bleaching is the act of stripping colour from an object and does so by altering its structure. So, in essence, it is a damaging process. How that damage is controlled rests with the person carrying out the treatment and, to this end, particular standards apply.

The sticking point here (as with all treatments) is to assess whether it's effective and safe. Research and development has no doubt improved the materials that are available but whether they are safe depends much more on what's in the package.

For example, you can bleach your hair but normally people would go to a hairdresser in order to do it. But of those 'home jobs' that I've seen, while they look good, there are many things that have gone wrong with the process which an untrained eye will not see. And of course we've all read the newspaper articles where some poor soul has been burned or their hair has fallen out and wants to sue the pants of the manufacturer.

A responsible manufacturer avoids this scenario and supports the industry by ensuring it supplies to properly qualified people.

The same situation applies to nails. How many threads do you see in here that illustrate how badly a nail has been damaged with safe product? Because it's been used by an untrained hand, that's why.

And that's the sticking point here.

Irrespective of the legality of this situation, I believe that it is not in the Beauty Therapist's interest legally, financially or ethically to either offer the tooth whitening procedure or supply the product. The reason for this is because the training beauty therapists receive in both the UK and Australia in no way comes close to any type of medical standard expected of a registered medical practitioner. And why would it: we have vastly different occupations!

Tooth whitening is deemed to be a medical procedure due to where it is carried out, what it is being carried out on, its hidden complexities and it's direct consequence to quality of life should something go wrong. Not every person is a candidate for tooth whitening and the process can cause permanent and irreversible damage.

I don't buy the economy argument. Sending soldiers off to Afghanistan keeps people in work and feeds their families too. But at what cost?

And that's what people have to ask themselves rather than be mesmerised by the money sign. Because this is what this thread is really about. Money. Doesn't anyone ask themselves at what price do we pay for good and safe service? The bottom line for me is a person's life and anything that interferes with its quality for me as a beauty therapist is a no go zone. If I was a dermatologist, the boundaries would be different. But I'm not so they remain exactly where they are.

All arguments aside, I just have to wonder why, if tooth whitening isn't your bag, meaning that you don't know much about it, why you would comment on its efficacy? Further, if you profess not to know much about it, then I would also wonder why you would advocate non professional use? And frighteningly, the very fact that the original poster has not only demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on the subject, has provided examples completely divorced from the topic at hand as well as to completely ignore its illegal implications only cements my opinion on this matter.

So if we have this going on, why are we then lamenting the appalling standards currently present in our industry?

Very well versed. I have argued umpteen times this exact point. Leave cosmetic medical procedures to medically qualified professionals. The public deserve protection. There is no accountability when bt's decide to undertake procedures which frankly they are not equipped to deal with. That is not meant to be detrimental in any way. Teeth whitening should be performed by cosmetic dentists in the same way as medical aesthetic procedures should be performed by medically qualified practitioners. It really is that simple. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a grossly lacking knowledge of the implications. These treatments must be respected. There really is no need for long winded arguments to the contrary. It is good to see some basic common sense here.

 

[daisyl]

I would not entirely agree there....teeth whitening isn't my bag however if the procedures are within the legislation that governs them and that the therapist if fully educated and competent then this treatment could potentially offer a good revenue stream to those that do decide to participate and derive an income from offering such a service to the consumer (which time and time again is being asked of them )which in turn feeds their families from within a sector which also contributes immensely into the countries wealth not only through taxes generated for good old Gordon Brown to reinvest into our roads (does he do that still)but through also keeping people employed...our industry...the beauty industry which is one of the few growing sectors left in our countries economy:hug:

Collin - where is the protection for the consumer. There is none. A bt is not regulated by any legal governing body as is the case for medically qualified professionals. There are many, many loopholes within legislation as we all know. Any member of the public seeking any type of cosmetic procedure must ensure they are only treated by a qualifed medical practitioner who is REGISTERED with and therefore ACCOUNTABLE to their professional governing body i.e GMC, BDC, NMC. This point cannot be stressed enough, and really to suggest otherwise is madness.