3 ms·
"There's no good evidence that flossing is effective for preventing dental carries and periodontal disease vs brushing alone" is not the same as "flossing is no
by astura 7y ago
"There's no good evidence that flossing is effective for preventing dental carries and periodontal disease vs brushing alone" is not the same as "flossing is not effective for preventing dental carries and periodontal disease vs brushing alone." Just because evidence for something doesn't exist or is weak doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just means we haven't done the high quality randomized studies to prove it works. And I'm not sure we'll ever have that, since these sorts of studies are expensive and there's ethical issues with asking a control group to stop flossing for years.
When done properly flossing is a very low risk intervention, is cheap, has a plausible mechanism of action, has anecdotal evidence for effectiveness, and makes you feel nice and clean afterwards. So you probably should still floss, even if there is no high quality evidence of effectiveness.
- d0mine 7y agoThere are whole countries where flossing is not a thing. Fluoridated water protects your teeth. The rest may be just culture.
- stevesimmons 7y agoFluoride protects teeth, not gums!
- AstralStorm 7y agoHealthy teeth project gums, or rather, unhealthy teeth lead to gum problems in the long run.
- stevesimmons 7y ago... and food stuck between teeth leads to gum problems in the short run!
- dgacmu 7y agoAlmost all cultures have some mechanism of cleaning larger food particles between teeth, particularly back teeth. But, more to the point -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/tossing-flossing-2016081710196 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/tossing-flossing-2016081...
- AstralStorm 7y agoUltimately, absence of evidence when we have actual trials testing it is some evidence of absence.