[Andrea]

Andrea asked the Naked Scientists:
   
Hi Chris,

I am a 702 listener and heard you talking about ozone and how toxic it is.

My 3 year old had a fissure in his tooth and they used ozone to kill the bacteria before sealing it. I have since found out that this procedure is not FDA approved but it is being used by many dentists. What are the consequences of this treatment for my son?

Regards
Andrea

What do you think?

[techmind]

Chemistry and toxicity are not really my areas of expertise, but I wouldn't worry about the ozone treatment.

Ozone is unstable (it decomposes to oxygen and/or reacts with other things and ceases to exist) so it won't accumulate in the body or anything like that. For a single dose, I would suggest that effects (if any) would be immediate (minutes/hours), rather than time delayed. It's a sort-of sterilising/bleaching agent.

I don't know how they apply the ozone for dental purposes, but I would guess it's applied extremely locally - high local concentration in a few cubic millimetres in the tooth, but rather more dilute if the same amount formed part of a breath. They may well use a surrounding airflow to tend to prevent the patient breathing it anyway.

The amount of ozone breathed in in a single dental treatment is probably pretty small compared to the lifetime exposure to atmospheric ozone pollution if you live in a city...


I stress I'm not an expert, and the above is mostly educated-guesswork/intuition.

[SSAMC]

The National Institutes of Health have been conducting MANY studies on the efficacy of various Ozone Therapies, albeit small ones since Big Money won't fund it.   

Do Internet Searches on "Ozone Therapy" using "NIH" in your search and be amazed at how Ozone is a Game-Changer in responsible healthcare.

[Bored chemist]

I was not amazed.

[SSAMC]

You didn't look.

"In conclusion, many aspects regarding the bio-medical application of ozone therapy remain unexplored. In the present prospective study, the effect of ozone therapy on human tumor pO2 has been measured using the polarographic probe technique, and the results indicate that ozone therapy could increase oxygenation in the most hypoxic tumors. This suggests the potential use of this therapy as adjuvant in chemo-radiotherapy schedules, and would warrant further investigation."

"Treating patients with ozone therapy lessens the treatment time with an immense deal of variation and it eradicates the bacterial count more specifically. The treatment is painless and increases the patients’ tolerability and fulfillment with minimal adverse effects. Contraindications of this controversial method should not be forgotten. Further research is needed to regulate indications and treatment procedures of ozone therapy."

"Almost 100% MRSA were eliminated by ozonated oil following 15 min. In addition, 100% S. aureus and 100% MRSA were eliminated by ozonated water in 1 min. The inhibition zone diameters of ozonated oil for S. aureus and MRSA were 17 and 13 mm, respectively, which were significantly larger than the control group. Both cases of skin MRSA infection were completely healed with ozone therapy. In conclusion, ozone therapy is a potential treatment for S. aureus and MRSA skin infection as it has great efficacy, few side effects and low‑costs."

"With fast growing clinical trials in O3 therapy and quick administration of the O3, O3 therapy may be on the rise to be at the forefront of treating DFUs. Compelling evidence is seen in clinical trials, but more must be done to fully understand the role of O3 in DFUs."

If you are Bored with these early, unbiased government findings, then You are boring.  I remain amazed at what future research will bolster.

[Bored chemist]

further investigation

Further research is needed

but more must be done

A whole bunch of "maybe" does not amaze me.

How did you check that they are " unbiased government findings, "?

[SSAMC]

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency — making important discoveries that improve health and save lives."

Their studies are humble, because they are self-funded, not funded by Big Pharma or any other Money-Bags;

but the results have been POSITIVE, not negative, not "maybe", not "neutral".

What kind of "Scientist" ignores NIH statements in favor of the "Cochrane library"?

[Bored chemist]

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency — making important discoveries that improve health and save lives."

Yes.
But they didn't do the work.
Let's have a look at your first example; the one that starts.

""In conclusion, many aspects regarding the bio-medical application of ozone therapy remain unexplored. In the present prospective study, the effect of ozone therapy on human tumor pO2 has been measured using the polarographic probe technique,..."



Being unscientific, you failed to cite the source. However, I can google it + find this page
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC442111/
And it says
"Ozone Therapy for Tumor Oxygenation: a Pilot Study
Bernardino Clavo,1,5 Juan L. Pérez,2,5 Laura López,1,5 Gerardo Suárez,1,5 Marta Lloret,1,5 Victor Rodríguez,3 David Macías,2,5 Maite Santana,1 María A. Hernández,1,5 Roberto Martín-Oliva,2 and Francisco Robaina4,5
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer"

The "author information" is a link, and when I click it it tells me the details of the authors of the study

"1Radiation Oncology and Research Unit, Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Spain
2Medical Physics, Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Spain
3La Paterna Medical Center, Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Spain
4Chronic Pain Unit, Dr Negrín Hospital, Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Spain
5Canary Islands Institute for Cancer Research (ICIC), Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Spain
For reprints and all correspondence: Bernardino Clavo, Department of Radiation Oncology and Research Unit, Dr Negrín Hospital, C/ Barranco la Ballena s/n, 35020 Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Spain. Fax: (+34) 928 449127; Tel: (+34) 928 450284. E-mail: "

That's a hospital on the Canary islands, not the NIH.

OK, so now we know that you don't even know how to read a scientific paper's citation.

Why should we pay any attention to your opinion about ozone?

[SSAMC]

Months ago I began researching this topic, and NIH studies came up, more and more since I first looked;

NONE of which had NEGATIVE things to say about applying Ozone to various, serious Health issues, all of which said More research is needed to make these assertions stronger.

Anyone relying upon the brash, hostile, Officious remarks would have blindly assumed that no such findings existed.

And THAT was my point, that based on your ignorant piffle nobody could have imagined that Our Nations leading Health Research body has published numerous remarks like the following:

"O3 therapy can alter the natural history of several disease and disorders, with potentially many more yet untested. A plethora of laboratory studies have provided evidence of O3's antioxidant capabilities, as well as vascular, hematological, and immune system modulations. This evidence has been further substantiated in clinical trials with O3 therapy being useful in the cardiovascular, subcutaneous tissue, peripheral vascular disease, neurological, head and neck, orthopedic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary pathologies. O3 therapy has proven especially beneficial in the diabetic foot, ischemic wounds, and peripheral vascular disease, areas in which O3 use is most prevalent. Upcoming laboratory and translational research should begin to develop protocols for O3-AHT in attempts to establish a dose-response relationship as it has demonstrated high utility in a myriad of pathologies at varying concentrations. Despite the presently compelling evidence, future studies should include more double-blind, randomized clinical trials with greater sample sizes, determination of longevity in benefits produced, as well as methods of measurements and analysis."

"Ozone was effectively used as an antibacterial agent to treat oral infections caused by Actinomyces naeslundii, Lactobacilli casei and Streptococcus mutans. Exposure of about 60 s exhibited 99.9% killing efficiency, but exposure for such a long period showed degradation of saliva proteins. So exposure of 10 s to 30 s was proved effective to kill significant number of bacteria.[47]

A single subcutaneous injection of O3 in mouse with spared nerve injury of the sciatic nerve was found to decrease the neuropathic pain-type behavior. Mechanism of this action is yet unclear but O3 was observed to regulate the expression of the genes that play vital role in onset and maintenance of allodynia.[48]"

These are Not my Opinions, oh Opinionated One; these are US publications that have been peer-reviewed, which your remarks imply Don't Exist.

[Bored chemist]

When you cite references (rather than quote) people might look at them.
As it  stands, I can't find out where some of the quotes are from. For all I know, you made them up.
One I can find is by a group of authors in India and published in the Saudi journal of Dental Research.
That's not in the group of " US publications that have been peer-reviewed,"

So, why not start by learning to actually cite papers properly?

[SSAMC]

For the Love of God; do a simple Internet Search using NIH and OZONE Therapy.

Do one that includes MRSA,
one that includes MS,
one that includes Diabetes,
one that includes Mycobacterium tuberculosis,
and on an on.......

You are not only Boring;
you're remarkably LAZY as well.

You're nothing but a Flat Earth Nay-Sayer.

[Bored chemist]

you're remarkably LAZY as well.

How come it's you who won't cite a reference then?
Also, have you got to grips with the fact that NIH references don't mean that NIH "approves" of them. It's just a list of papers.

[SSAMC]

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency — making important discoveries that improve health and save lives."

So, you really think they would present Glowing Verbiage

Ozone therapy: an overview of pharmacodynamics, current research, and clinical utility
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5674660/ [nofollow]   : 
Clinical Utility
With its ever-growing ubiquity, O3 therapy is finding a place in many branches of medicine and medical specialties. In fact, its clinical use can be arranged systematically into cardiovascular (Additional Table 1), subcutaneous tissue (Additional Table 2), peripheral vascular disease (Additional Table 3), neurological (Additional Table 4), head and neck (Additional Table 5), orthopedic (Additional Table 6), gastrointestinal (Additional Table 7), and genitourinary (Additional Table . These indications are a product of human clinical trials conducted for specific pathologies related to the aforementioned systems. Despite a lack of direct support of O3 therapy, the current Food and Drug Administration regulations do not restrict the use of it in situations where it has proven its safety and effectiveness. Nonetheless, there has been support for its safety and effectiveness in multi-international studies.

If our government scientists believed it was the Complete Crap you represent it to be?

And THAT has always been my point.

You completely misrepresent the efforts our government is putting into amassing literature of a technology they obviously see as promising, not Snake Oil.

[evan_au]

evidence of O3's antioxidant capabilities

My understanding is that Ozone (O₃) is a powerful oxidising agent - exactly the opposite of an antioxidant.

Oxygen in the air (O₂) is fairly reactive, but O₃ has an extra oxygen atom which it will give up to almost any organic molecule it bumps into.

Ozone damages the lungs and mouth at a concentration of around 0.1 parts per million (ppm), compared to atmospheric oxygen on which our bodies thrive at around 200,000 ppm.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

Exposure of about 60 s exhibited 99.9% killing efficiency, but exposure for such a long period showed degradation of saliva proteins.

I agree that Ozone will damage single-celled organisms, due to its high solubility in water and its powerful oxidising affect on organic chemicals (including bacterial cell walls).

As they point out, this combination means that it will also degrade proteins in saliva.

What they don't point out is that it will also degrade the cell walls of your mouth, nose, lungs and eyes - any surface to which it is exposed, especially if it is a damp surface. They used saliva as a proxy because it is fairly easy to sample - it's not so easy to sample lung tissue to measure the damage caused by ozone exposure.

Dentistry....MRSA...Diabetes

I can believe that treating a damaged tooth with ozone could reduce bacterial load before applying a filling. But I would apply it very locally, and advise the patient to breathe in through their nose, and out through their mouth. Ozone is dangerous to the mouth, nose and lungs - but at least cells in the mouth renew themselves regularly.

MRSA is a single-celled organism that is resistant to antibiotics. If MRSA gets into an exposed wound which won't heal, exposing the region to a dose of ozone may be beneficial, overall. But I would apply it inside a seal that prevents escape into the room, and in a room with good airflow.

MRSA can kill you if it gets into your bloodstream. But nobody would suggest treating your bloodstream with ozone - that will cause systemic damage.

I see no mechanism by which exposure to ozone could improve regulation of insulin levels to cure diabetes (nor did this thread provide one).

Ozone is a dangerous environmental and occupational hazard, and I would avoid exposing anyone with asthma or other respiratory problems.

[SSAMC]

The NIH publications include an array of precautions that must be taken with ozone.

I am alarmed by the Attitude Here that says:

Believe ME! ..Don't look behind the curtain... Don't do some searches and reading for yourself.
TRUST ME!!!!

I didn't realize this was a Political Site; I thought it was for Scientists, for Inquiring, Inquisitive Minds.

Since it's all about Status Quo and ignoring the latest government publications,
I'm outta here, fellas. 

Celebrate: Mission Accomplished.

[Bored chemist]

So, you really think they would present Glowing Verbiage

Here's the NIH page citing the utterly discredited lies of Andrew Wakefield
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500320



Do you understand what the citation by the NIH means?
It means that the paper was published; that's all.

So your viewpoint "it's cited by NIH means it must be good" makes about as much sense as saying " Google found it- so it must be true!"

[SSAMC]

So your point is What? 

All NIH articles expressing positive findings RE Ozone Therapies are Wholy-Invalid,
just because you found a Retraction of one of their papers that has
Absolutely Nothing to Do with Ozone Therapy?

and that WE should put our minds in the sole hands of your precious Cockcrane Library, instead?

NIH's Retraction Proves My POINT, not yours, Boring. 

Thank you for evidencing that NIH retracts things unworthy of NIH's de facto endorsement, by virtue of its publication on their website.

Keep up the Good Work, Boring.

[chiralSPO]

Months ago I began researching this topic, and NIH studies came up, more and more since I first looked;

NONE of which had NEGATIVE things to say about applying Ozone to various, serious Health issues, all of which said More research is needed to make these assertions stronger.

It is VERY rare to find negative results published. It really only happens when research shows that standard approaches are wrong or dangerous ie:
"This thing that everybody does is bad" might get published,
"This thing that nobody does is great" might get published,
"This thing that nobody does is bad" probably won't get published (even if it should).

As far as the NIH goes: Yes, the NIH is (supposed to be) an unbiased, nationally-funded organization. But it is not responsible for doing any of the research that has been discussed here. Another one of their services is that they aggregate relevant published research. This is NOT an endorsement, or an affiliation, or anything other than the NIH saying, "this is an article published in a journal that is relevant to medicine/pharmacology/epidemiology/biology/physiology etc"

Ozone may well have some promise, especially as a disinfectant for non-living systems, but let's not get too excited here.

I didn't realize this was a Political Site; I thought it was for Scientists, for Inquiring, Inquisitive Minds.

A little bit of pushback on a controversial topic is enough to scare you away? Perhaps you are not an inquisitive mind, and are already decided and trying to convince others?

[SSAMC]

"A little bit of pushback"?

Until I posted, Ozone Therapy was characterized HERE as ill-conceived, foolish at best.

That is a LIE.

[Bored chemist]

So your point is What? 

All NIH articles expressing positive findings RE Ozone Therapies are Wholy-Invalid,
just because you found a Retraction of one of their papers that has
Absolutely Nothing to Do with Ozone Therapy?

and that WE should put our minds in the sole hands of your precious Cockcrane Library, instead?

NIH's Retraction Proves My POINT, not yours, Boring. 

Thank you for evidencing that NIH retracts things unworthy of NIH's de facto endorsement, by virtue of its publication on their website.

Keep up the Good Work, Boring.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding stuff?
It's beginning to look like you are trolling.

You say "NIH's Retraction Proves My POINT, not yours, Boring.  "

But that's just silly. The NIH didn't retract the paper.

Did you not understand that?



Aldo, you seem to think that the appearance of a paper on the NIH web page is an endorsement.
Do you actually think that?

If not, the NIH has nothing to do with, for example, a paper written by people in India and published in Saudia, so why mention them?