Every few years, a company decides that a boring household product is actually an unsolved engineering problem. Sometimes that instinct produces something people genuinely want. Sometimes it produces a $400 juicer that squeezes bags.
The tell is almost always the price.
When a company enters a mature category at double the going rate, it is not competing on the product. It is competing on the story, and it is betting on a slice of buyers who treat expensive as proof of better.
Oral care has been one of the steadiest corners of consumer staples for decades. Three companies own most of it.
Procter & Gamble (PG) sells Oral-B and Crest. Colgate-Palmolive (CL) sells Colgate. Koninklijke Philips (PHG) holds the third spot with Sonicare.
The economics have been stable for years. Manual brushes and toothpaste move steady volume at low prices, and power brushes carry the margin.
Growth comes from walking people up the ladder, from a $5 manual brush to a $60 rechargeable to a $400 flagship. Every rung is a mix-shift win.
That ladder just got a new top rung, and neither incumbent built it.
Dyson launched the CameraJet on Sept. 1 for $499, putting a 100,000-pixel macro camera and a machine learning system inside the handle of a toothbrush. The camera reads the gaps between your teeth while you brush and fires a conical burst of mouthrinse at them.
Dyson has done this before with expensive hardware
The privately held company has a well-documented habit of walking into categories it has no obvious claim to and pricing itself above everyone already there.
It did it with hair dryers. It did it with air-purifying headphones that TheStreet covered when they reached the U.S. market. Now it has done it with the thing sitting next to your bathroom sink.
Related: Amazon is selling an ‘effective’ Oral-B electric toothbrush for just $60
The engineering claim is real enough. Dyson says the camera captures 28 images per second and can trigger the jet within 100 milliseconds of spotting a gap, with the targeting system trained on 470,000 dental images.
“Flossing is an awkward and time-consuming chore,” founder James Dyson said in a statement, according to The Next Web.
Oral-B power brush volume is moving the wrong way
Here is the part of this story I have not seen anyone else connect, and it is the part that actually matters if you own consumer staples.
Dyson is entering premium oral care at the exact moment the category leader is shrinking in it.
P&G’s oral care organic sales “decreased mid-single digits driven by a volume decline,” led by North America and Greater China, according to the company’s fiscal 2026 fourth-quarter results. Health care was P&G’s worst-performing segment that quarter, with volume down three percent.
That is the segment that houses Oral-B.
More Health & Biotech:
- Mark Cuban just picked a fight that goes beyond his usual beat
- A cancer vaccine years in the making just proved itself
- BofA biotech scorecard: Two buys and odd one out
Colgate’s growth, meanwhile, is coming from the bottom of the ladder rather than the top. Its oral care gains were driven by “toothpaste and manual toothbrush categories,” the company said in its second-quarter 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Colgate held 41.3% of the global toothpaste market and 32.7% of manual toothbrushes on a year-to-date basis, per that same filing.
Read those two disclosures together and a picture forms. The cheap end of oral care is holding up fine. The premium end, the part that carries the margin, is where the pressure is.
Dyson has walked directly into that gap with a device priced roughly $100 above the Philips Sonicare Prestige 9900 and the Oral-B iO Series 10, according to Engadget.
The refills are the actual business model
The $499 is the part that will drive the headlines. It is not the part I would watch.
Dyson built the CameraJet so that ordinary toothpaste and mouthwash interfere with it. Standard formulas foam too much for the camera to see through, so the company has developed its own low-foaming mouthrinse and a toothpaste made without sodium lauryl sulfate.
That is a razor-and-blades model wearing a lab coat. Here is what the ongoing bill looks like:
- Replacement brush heads run about $25 for a pair and need swapping every three months, according to TechRadar.
- Dyson’s own toothpaste and mouthrinse each cost roughly $11.50, per that same TechRadar review.
- A 400-milliliter bottle of mouthrinse covers about 32 brushing sessions, per TechRadar.
- Annual spending on Dyson consumables could reach $200, according to Stuff, which tested the device for a week before launch.
- Each brush head carries an RFID tag that tracks usage and prompts replacement, per Engadget.
Run that math and the five-year cost of ownership clears $1,400 before you replace the handle.
That is the number that should interest anyone holding PG or CL. Not because Dyson will take meaningful share from either one in the next year. It will not.
Because Dyson just demonstrated that a household with disposable income will accept a subscription-shaped relationship with its toothbrush. Incumbents with distribution in every drugstore in America will notice.
What Dyson’s 69% plaque claim rests on
The company says lab testing found the CameraJet removed nearly 70% more plaque in hard-to-reach areas than premium electric toothbrushes, according to Fox Business.
That claim deserves a closer look before anyone treats it as settled.
The testing was conducted by Dyson, using a synthetic plaque substitute the company developed over five years with the National University of Singapore’s dentistry faculty.
That is a controlled comparison against a proxy material, not a clinical trial measuring outcomes in actual mouths over time. It is a reasonable engineering benchmark. It is not the same thing as evidence that your gums will be healthier in two years.
My reading of the disclosure is that Dyson is being careful with its language, which is usually a sign a company knows exactly where the limits of its data sit.
What this means for the oral care trade
The CameraJet will not move P&G’s or Colgate’s numbers this quarter. Dyson sells through its own website and its own stores, which is a rounding error against Walmart, Target, Amazon, and every pharmacy chain in the country.
The signal is what matters.
Consumer staples companies have spent three years telling investors that premiumization is the growth story, that shoppers will pay up for better versions of ordinary things. P&G’s fiscal 2026 numbers just showed that thesis failing in oral care specifically.
Then a vacuum company walked in and priced a toothbrush at $499 anyway.
One of those two readings of the consumer is wrong. If Dyson sells through, the incumbents have a product problem rather than a consumer problem, and that is fixable with better hardware.
If the CameraJet sits on shelves, then the ceiling on what an American household will pay to clean its teeth is lower than the staples pitch has assumed. That is a harder problem, and it shows up in mix and in margin.
Watch the reorder rate on those brush heads. That number will tell you which one it is long before either company puts it in a filing.
Related: Why an electric toothbrush is a smart investment — most cost $50 or less