Does Your Toothbrush Need Reinventing?

A toothbrush doesn't seem like something that needs much reinventing.

Bristles. Handle. Toothpaste. Brush twice a day.

We've been doing some version of that for generations.

But PRIMALS looked at the toothbrush differently.

The company makes toothbrushes using bamboo and natural horse or boar hair instead of the synthetic bristles found on most modern brushes. Its electric version combines a sonic handle with replaceable natural-bristle heads.[7][8]

That alone is unusual.

But something else caught our attention: PRIMALS lists many of its replacement heads as compatible with a broad range of Philips Sonicare click-on handles.[7]

So someone interested in trying natural bristles may not need to replace a functioning motor, battery, charger, and handle just to use them.

If that compatibility works as represented for a consumer's model, it may allow them to replace only the disposable head rather than functioning electronics.

That is a form of consumer-friendly innovation worth noticing.

We wanted to know whether PRIMALS is solving a meaningful problem, whether its alternative holds up, and where the company's marketing reaches further than the evidence presently allows.

This Company Deep Dive is an editorial investigation, not a product endorsement.

What Is PRIMALS Actually Changing?

Most modern toothbrushes use synthetic filaments such as nylon or related polymers.[1]

PRIMALS replaces those filaments with natural horse or boar hair attached to a bamboo head.[7][8]

Its electric toothbrush itself is not plastic-free. The powered handle still contains synthetic materials and electronics.[8]

The meaningful change is concentrated in the part that enters the mouth and gets replaced regularly: the brush head.

That makes PRIMALS less of a complete reinvention and more of a redesign of one disposable component.

And because PRIMALS lists many of its replacement heads as compatible with existing Sonicare click-on handles, the company can potentially compete at the component level instead of requiring every customer to enter a new hardware ecosystem.[7]

Sometimes innovation is not about replacing everything.

Sometimes it is about improving one part of something people already own.

Do Synthetic Toothbrushes Actually Shed Plastic?

Yes—under testing designed to reflect regular brushing.

A 2025 study tested commercially available toothbrushes on a simulated dental arch twice daily and identified released microplastics, including nylon and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT). The researchers reported substantial variation between brushes and an average of up to 39 identified microplastic particles per day in the highest-releasing product tested.[1]

A separate 2025 study examining oral-care products used in China estimated an average toothbrush-associated release of at least 2.33 million particles per person per year under its model.[2]

The exact amount varies by brush, material, testing method, and use conditions.

But the central point is supported: Synthetic toothbrushes have been shown to release plastic particles under simulated brushing conditions designed to reflect regular use.[1][2]

PRIMALS did not invent that concern.

And by removing synthetic bristles from the brushing surface, the company removes that particular material source.

That is a legitimate product difference.

Where the Marketing Gets Ahead of the Evidence

The larger question is what those released particles actually mean for human health.

Across its marketing, PRIMALS has connected conventional toothbrush materials with claims involving microplastics entering the body, BPA, phthalates, PFAS, hormone disruption, inflammation, gut health, and other possible effects.[7][9]

Those are much broader propositions than showing that synthetic bristles release material. The toothbrush-specific evidence we reviewed does not establish that entire chain.

In fact, the 2025 study that estimated millions of toothbrush-associated particles annually concluded that the toothbrushes and toothpastes it tested did not directly contribute to health risks associated with microplastic exposure within its assessment.[2]

That doesn't prove toothbrush-derived microplastics are harmless.

It means we should distinguish carefully between: material release → human exposure → demonstrated health effect

Those are different questions.

PRIMALS also presents the study's finding that 63% of identified particles were below 100 micrometers, alongside stronger claims about particles entering the body through gum tissue.[2][7] The study itself established particle size; it did not demonstrate that 63% of those toothbrush-derived particles crossed the gums into the bloodstream.

We also could not independently establish the broader suggestion that ordinary toothbrush bristles generally contain BPA, phthalates, or PFAS at levels that meaningfully leach into the mouth during normal brushing.[7][9]

For now, those broader health claims remain PRIMALS' position rather than settled toothbrush-specific evidence.

What About EMF?

PRIMALS also advertises lower electromagnetic-field measurements from its electric toothbrush compared with a competing sonic brush.

To the company's credit, PRIMALS publishes its comparison conditions and numerical results. It reports 14 V/m versus 265 V/m for electric field and 17.62 μT versus 88.29 μT for magnetic field when comparing its brush with what it calls a leading plastic electric toothbrush using the same meter and distance.[10]

That gives the claim more substance than an unexplained “low-EMF” label. We have not independently reproduced the test.

And even if PRIMALS' measurements are accurate, a lower measured field does not by itself establish a meaningful health advantage.

Current guidance from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection says research has not shown long-term low-level exposure to low-frequency fields to have detrimental health effects.[6]

So we view PRIMALS' lower-EMF design as a potentially real engineering characteristic—not proof that competing toothbrushes expose consumers to a demonstrated health danger.

And that is okay.

A design improvement does not need to prevent disease to have value.

Does the Natural-Bristle Alternative Actually Work?

This may matter more than any health-oriented marketing.

A toothbrush can reduce synthetic material or use more renewable components, but it still has one primary job: clean teeth safely and effectively.

The American Dental Association recommends soft-bristled toothbrushes and evaluates toothbrush safety and efficacy around considerations including plaque removal, gingivitis reduction, bristle retention, mechanical strength, and safe use on oral tissues.[3]

The contemporary dental guidance and comparative evidence we located centers primarily on synthetic-bristle designs, while direct modern evidence for animal-hair designs is sparse.

One small 1977 study involving 12 adults compared nylon, pig bristle, other animal hair, and rubber. Nylon removed an average of 59.6% of measured plaque, compared with 42.3% for pig bristles and 39.5% for the animal-hair brush tested.[4]

A 1987 comparison of pig and nylon bristles likewise found a tendency toward greater plaque removal with nylon under the experimental conditions used.[5]

Those studies were small, decades old, and did not test PRIMALS' modern sonic system. They do not establish that PRIMALS performs poorly.

They simply leave an important question open:

How well does PRIMALS' finished product perform compared with established modern brushes?

Product-specific testing on plaque removal, gum safety, bristle retention, wear, and durability would help answer that.

Natural Is Not Automatically Better

Synthetic bristles have advantages.

Their dimensions, stiffness, shape, and finish can be manufactured with considerable consistency, and modern toothbrush safety and effectiveness standards have largely developed around synthetic-bristle designs.[3]

Natural hair has different properties and greater biological variation.

That does not make it inferior.

It means the finished product should prove itself on performance rather than relying on the word natural.

PRIMALS also deserves credit for acknowledging one tradeoff openly: its electric-toothbrush instructions say a small number of natural bristles may shed during the first several uses.[8]

That creates an interesting comparison.

Conventional bristles can release microscopic synthetic material as they wear.[1][2]

PRIMALS can also lose material, but what is being shed is natural hair.[8]

Those are not equivalent exposures. But both remind us that changing the material does not remove the need to understand how a toothbrush behaves over time.

Who Is PRIMALS?

PRIMALS identifies Lauryn La as its founder and says the company was founded in Hawaii.[13] The brand now sells several personal-care products, although our investigation focused specifically on its toothbrush system.

The company provides a fair amount of public product information. It explains much of the brush construction, offers boar- and horse-bristle options, discusses initial bristle shedding, and publishes detailed compatibility information for existing Sonicare handles.[7][8]

Some parts of the supply chain remain difficult to establish publicly.

We could not determine enough detail about:

• where the bamboo originates;
• where the toothbrush heads are manufactured;
• the basis for describing the bamboo as sustainably sourced;
• broader manufacturing or labor conditions;
• the exact material used in the electric replacement head's attachment mechanism. We also found differing descriptions across PRIMALS materials regarding how boar hair is sourced.

One PRIMALS article describes its boar bristles as a byproduct of meat production.[11]

The company's current electric toothbrush page says the bristles are collected during the boars' natural summer shedding season, when the hair is ready to release, and the animals are not harmed.[8]

There may be a simple explanation—different suppliers, changing practices, different product lines, or older information that has not been updated.

We don't know, so we asked.

That is an unresolved question, not an accusation.

The Compatibility Question Matters

This became one of our favorite findings.

Consumer products increasingly rely on proprietary replacement components.

A durable product may continue working perfectly, yet the consumer remains dependent on one manufacturer for the small piece that wears out.

PRIMALS could have followed that model.

Instead, the company lists its natural-bristle heads as compatible with numerous Philips Sonicare click-on models, while clearly excluding Philips One, screw-on handles, and other non-click-on systems. PRIMALS also states that it is not affiliated with or endorsed by Philips.[7]

The heads are therefore not universally compatible, and buyers should verify their specific model.

Still, the principle is worth recognizing:

Innovation can compete with an existing ecosystem without requiring consumers to abandon it.

If compatibility performs as represented, that can reduce unnecessary replacement, increase consumer choice, and focus competition on the component where the innovation actually occurs.

In PRIMALS' case, that is the toothbrush head.

We would like to see more consumer companies think that way.

Innovation Doesn't Need a Villain

There is a broader pattern we've begun noticing while researching companies attempting to rethink ordinary products.

Often, the innovation itself is interesting.

Then the marketing feels compelled to prove that what came before it was dangerous.

The argument shifts from:

Here's what we changed. Here's why we think it's better. to: What you've been using is harming you, and we're the solution.

Fear creates urgency.

But strong innovation does not need fear to make its case.

PRIMALS has already done something worth examining.

It questioned why electric toothbrush heads need synthetic bristles.

It created a natural alternative.

It made that alternative compatible, by its own specifications, with hardware many consumers already own.[7]

And it centered the design around reducing synthetic material in a regularly replaced component.

None of that requires conventional toothbrushes to be dangerous.

The innovation becomes more convincing when it can stand beside products already proven to work.

Test it. Improve it.

Prove what it does differently.

Explain the tradeoffs honestly.

Then let consumers decide whether the difference matters to them.

We Reached Out to PRIMALS

As part of this investigation, The Good Fruit contacted PRIMALS and provided the company with the substance of our findings and unresolved questions.

We asked for additional information regarding:

• finished-product dental and performance testing;
• support for broader health claims;
• the company's EMF comparison;
• bamboo sourcing and manufacturing;
• horse- and boar-hair sourcing;
• the material used in the electric replacement-head attachment;
• and differences we found across some company materials.

Our purpose was not to ask PRIMALS to approve this article.

It was to give the company a fair opportunity to correct factual misunderstandings, provide evidence we could not locate publicly, and add context where the public record remains incomplete.

Our reporting does not depend upon a company choosing to respond.

What we publish reflects what we can reasonably establish from the evidence available at the time.

If PRIMALS later provides information that materially changes or clarifies this investigation, we will review it and update this article where appropriate.

Meaningful changes will be documented through The Good Fruit's corrections and update process.

Where We Stand

PRIMALS has earned our attention.

The concern that synthetic toothbrushes can release microplastic particles under simulated brushing conditions is supported by emerging research.[1][2]

Its natural-bristle design genuinely changes that material pathway.[7][8]

And its decision to make many replacement heads compatible, according to its specifications, with existing Sonicare handles is an encouraging approach to consumer choice.[7]

Important uncertainties remain.

We have not found strong product-specific clinical evidence showing how PRIMALS' natural-bristle system compares with established synthetic brushes in plaque removal, gum safety, durability, and bristle retention.

Some of the company's stronger health-oriented marketing also reaches further than the toothbrush-specific evidence we could establish.[2][7][9]

And parts of its sourcing and manufacturing story remain publicly incomplete.

None of that requires us to dismiss what PRIMALS is building.

It tells us where the light reaches—and where it doesn't yet.

Our conclusion is therefore more nuanced than:

old toothbrush bad, new toothbrush good.

PRIMALS appears to have built a genuinely different toothbrush around a real material concern.

And perhaps the most encouraging thing we found is this:

The product may have a stronger case than some of the fear-based arguments being used to sell it.

The innovation is already interesting.

What it needs most now is continued testing, transparency, and confidence in what it actually improves.

Fearless in service. Careful in claims.

That standard applies to us.

It should apply to every company asking consumers for their trust too.

A Company Deep Dive doesn't exist to tell you what to buy.

It exists to make what was difficult to see easier to understand.

Sources & Bibliography

Independent Research and Guidance

[1] Aytulun, Ç. Ö., Dana, P. A., Gachayzade, Z., Gedik, K., Balci, N., & Toygar, H. (2025). Preliminary results on microplastic release from commercial toothbrushes during simulated brushing. Microchemical Journal, 216, 114680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2025.114680 ScienceDirect record: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0026265X2502034X

[2] Wang, S., Zheng, N., Peng, L., An, Q., Chen, C., & Wei, Y. (2025). Patterns and risks of microplastic release during primary oral care in Chinese residents. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 302, 118694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.118694 PubMed record: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40680448/

[3] American Dental Association. (2026). Toothbrushes. ADA Oral Health Topics. https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/toothbrushes Note: the ADA page was last updated in August 2026 and supports the article’s discussion of soft bristles, manual versus powered brushes, plaque removal, tuft retention, mechanical strength, safety, and ADA Seal testing requirements.

[4] Arai, T., Suzuki, M., Hatabu, T., Yokota, M., Hasegawa, K., & Kinoshita, S. (1977). The plaque-removing effect of natural and synthetic bristle toothbrushes. Journal of the Japanese Society of Periodontology, 19(2), 170–176. https://doi.org/10.2329/perio.19.170 J-STAGE record: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/perio1968/19/2/19_2_170/_article

[5] Suzuki, J., Watanabe, T., Watanabe, I., Shoji, Y., Fukushima, M., Arai, T., & Nakamura, J. (1987). Studies on the effect of different kinds of toothbrushes on plaque removal and toothbrushing pressure in scrubbing method of toothbrushing (Report 3): For toothbrushes of pig bristles and nylon bristles. Journal of the Japanese Society of Periodontology, 29(3), 909–918. https://doi.org/10.2329/perio.29.909

J-STAGE record: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/perio1968/29/3/29_3_909/_article/-char/en [6] International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. (2010). Low frequency fields (1 Hz–100 kHz). https://www.icnirp.org/en/frequencies/low-frequency/lf.html ICNIRP guidelines PDF: https