I wondered if the the confusion might be because MichaelG's link was to Emmi-dent (the version for humans) but the ingredient list I quoted came from the back of a tube of Emmi-pet. Not so – further research reveals:
Ingredients
Aqua, Hydrated Silica, Sorbitol, Propylene Glycol, Tetrapotassium Pyrophosphate, Xanthan Gum, Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate, Aroma, Titanium Dioxide, Sodium Fluoride, Sodium Saccharin, Allantoin, Limonene, Mentha Arvensis Leaf Extract, Chamomilla Recutita Flower Extract, Salvia Officinalis Leaf Extract, Sodium Methylparaben.
for Emmi-dent. So essentially the same formula, but with the omission of sodium fluoride in the pet version presumably because of the toxicity problem JasonB highlighted. So still mysterious and possibly mendacious – though I suppose it might depend on how 'abrasive' is defined.
The German version of the patent for the toothbrush yields no more pertinent information than the summary in English. It says that there is an ultrasonic transducer in the head of the device which is connected to a battery and pressing the button causes the thing to work. I'm surprised that the patent was granted (if it was) – prior art surely? Ultrasonic cleaning has been around since the 1950's it seems.
My Teutophone friend translated Manfred Ruppel's letter for me and came up with 'clearly shows the presence of micro bubbles' rather than the 'clearly shows the formation of …' in the English version of the letter which Michael found. I don't know if that's significant, but I do know that Ruppel's observations are scientifically valueless in the absence of information about what exactly he has imaged, and under what conditions (ie context).
I'm no further forward in understanding how Emmi-pet/dent toothpaste enhances the mechanism of ultrasonic cleaning. I suspect it's a sales ploy.
Robin.
Edited By Robin Graham on 28/08/2019 01:29:30