81–90 of 390 posts
Isn't flossing not supported by science also, but all the news articles said you should keep flossing?
I don't do the dentist recommended 2/week but if I stop flossing for over a month I notice significant decrease in my gum health. It becomes excruciatingly painful to brush and this stage and my mouth is full of blood afterwards.
So I'm sticking to flossing pretty often now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Remember the old adage--it's the dose that makes the poison. There is *nothing* that is not lethal if consumed in sufficient quantity. That includes *everything* that we require to live, although in some cases it becomes effectively impossible to ingest a lethal amount. Thus showing that something is toxic doesn't mean it's something you should never consume. And note that fluoridation started because it was observed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Fluoride may potentially have some negative effects but we’ve been drinking Florida red water across the world for several decades and different countries have added fluoridation at different times etc, and it’s hard to see any severe effect that would qualify it as anything close to “madness”.
Not just x-rays: "As a profession, dentistry has not yet applied the same level of self-scrutiny as medicine, or embraced as sweeping an emphasis on scientific evidence." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/the-tro...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If it was “highly toxic” it would be obvious because people would be getting sick or dying after ingesting it. Maybe it’s got some issues that aren’t obvious, but there’s not a clear answer. However you don’t swallow mouth rinses like Act, so any nonobvious issue is also greatly reduced.
Not swallowing is great, but I'm sure the concentration is high enough for it to be absorbed anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Like with everything else, the dosage makes the poison. I personally intend to stay vigilante to dihydrogen monoxide poisoning.
Edit: Haha, speaking about whooshing, use your brain or someone else will.
Isn't flossing not supported by science also, but all the news articles said you should keep flossing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of dental x-rays they took? Panoramic (shows the whole row of teeth in one image), CBCT (volumetric 3D) or intraoral (a digital sensor or film was put inside your mouth)?
Not OP, but I have only ever had the type of dental x-ray where they stick the L-shaped plastic into your mouth and make your bite down while they take photos. I had no idea there were others.
> "Financial aspects of dental radiography also deserve further study," Feit added No joke. That is a major money maker. There is minimal cost per-use and your insurance pays $200 for it (my last one was $186.00 for instance). The dentists would be crazy not to recommend them as of often as possible. Fluoride "rinses" are likely up there too. Rinse for a few seconds and they charge the insurance $50 or something for…
Interestingly, I lived in Central Europe for a while and all my private dentists just used visual inspection for teeth. I never had an issue with that, all decay was spotted in time and in many cases earlier than with the x-ray only method, because more attention was paid to how the teeth look up-close, at all angles.
However, the visual inspection takes more time and skill. One might argue x-ray is the cheaper and quicker option. Though it costs more to the patient in many cases. Ah, the world of dentistry.