The Dyson CameraJet toothbrush review consensus is in, at least from the dentist’s chair: intrigued, cautious, and not yet reaching for a credit card. Dyson’s new £499 electric toothbrush combines oscillating brush heads with a precision water jet and a tiny camera to detect gaps between teeth, and it has generated more dental debate in a week than most new products manage in a year.
What the CameraJet Actually Does
The CameraJet simultaneously brushes and floss-jets by emitting a fan-like spray of mouthwash or water directly into the gaps between teeth as the brush head oscillates. The jet is not continuous; instead, a 100mm-pixel macro lens, roughly the size of a pencil tip, captures 28 images per second and triggers the spray only when it detects a gap. That image-processing sits at the heart of the device’s claim to be genuinely new, rather than simply a premium water flosser bolted onto a toothbrush. According to Pulse 2, the brush integrates a 12.5 ml mouthrinse tank designed to dispense enough liquid for one full cleaning session.
The brush also feeds a real-time video to the Dyson app, so users can watch their own oral cavity as they clean. You need to use SLS-free toothpaste and mouthwash throughout, because anything that foams interferes with the camera’s gap detection. Dyson has developed its own compatible toothpaste and mouth rinse, though neither is yet available to buy.
Behind the product sits a serious development effort. The Guardian reports that 661 engineers worked on the CameraJet, which gives some indication of why the price sits where it does.
Dyson CameraJet Toothbrush Review: Four Dentists Give Their Verdict
Brian Kantor, DDS, at Lowenberg, Lituchy & Kantor in New York City, says the core concept makes clinical sense. “Anything that can make patients more consistent with their oral hygiene gets my attention,” he says. “The idea of combining brushing and interdental cleaning into one routine makes a lot of sense, particularly because one of the biggest problems we see is that patients brush but don’t consistently floss.” He is not recommending it yet, though: “I want to see how it performs in the real world over time before I tell patients they need to go out and buy it.”
Vanna Stone, DMD, at Gentle Caring Dentistry in Livingston, NJ, wants to see the results of independent clinical trials. Dyson has shared a four-week study of 60 subjects comparing the CameraJet against a manual toothbrush, and the CameraJet led on every metric. Data shared via X from that study shows gum bleeding fell 65% with the CameraJet versus 37% with a manual brush, and 74% of CameraJet users reached “healthy gums” status, compared to 6% in the manual group. But as Dr Stone points out, “so would an Oral-B or Sonicare electric toothbrush.” What she actually wants to see is a study comparing the CameraJet against a quality electric brush used alongside traditional floss. “Are the results equivalent? Better? How much better?”
Michael Wei, DDS, a cosmetic dentist based in Manhattan, considers the real-time camera the device’s biggest positive, because it lets users spot the areas they are missing as they brush. He is less convinced by the full package, suggesting that some features “may have been added for the sake of making the most luxurious and up-to-date toothbrush, which may cause this product to become more of a fad than an everyday item.”
Ivona Igerc, DDS, who practises in London, is the most direct. “No toothbrush is worth $500,” she says. “A standard $10 manual brush or a $70 sonic toothbrush removes plaque just as effectively. High-end tech doesn’t change the laws of friction or fluid dynamics.”
The CameraJet does not currently hold an American Dental Association seal of acceptance. There are 16 electric toothbrushes that do carry the organisation’s seal. Manufacturers must submit their own products for consideration, and applications start at $20,000.
Will It Replace Floss?
Every dentist consulted was clear on this: no. “If teeth are tight or crowded, you need traditional floss,” says Dr Stone. “You really need to snap that floss between the teeth to remove plaque.” An Irish dentist who tested the CameraJet and posted her results found both plaque and food residue between her teeth after using it, confirmed by running traditional floss afterwards. Allure editors testing the brush have not replicated those findings, but they also did not use plaque-disclosing tablets to check.
Dr Stone is also clear the CameraJet is not a substitute for a water flosser used to clean under the gum line or around bridges and crowns. From what she knows of the device’s design, it addresses the spaces between teeth, not those deeper periodontal pockets.
Dr Kantor puts the broader case well: “For the enormous number of patients who simply don’t floss consistently, a device that automatically cleans between the teeth every time they brush could potentially be a significant improvement over what they’re currently doing.” As Dr Stone summarises, “if it excites you and you want to spend $500, I fully support your oral care journey.” The CameraJet carries a two-year limited warranty; what happens after those 730 days is between you and your wallet.
