The recent flurry of news regarding the benefits of dental floss has
left out an important point of view: while the evidence of flossing’s medical
benefits may be weak, the evidence that it is pointless or harmful is even
weaker. What’s more, flossing is an inexpensive oral hygiene practice
accessible for people most in need of improved oral health.
But let’s break this down.
The Associated Press reported:
The
evidence for flossing is "weak, very unreliable," of "very
low" quality, and carries "a moderate to large potential for
bias." … One study
review in 2011 did credit floss with a slight reduction in gum inflammation —
which can sometimes develop over time into full-fledged gum disease. However,
the reviewers ranked the evidence as "very unreliable."
But the study review authors actually noted:
What is important to note here is:
- The "weak, unreliable" language actually references the evidence that flossing specifically reduces plaque, not gum disease. But more importantly, the language used comes from a different lexicon than we use every day. “Weak, unreliable, low quality” all sound like
common terminology, but in the research world, this type of language doesn’t
indicate the science shouldn’t be believed. The terms actually may reflect that
study authors left out some details (such as the exact method of randomizing
people) that the study reviewers could not confirm, not that the research is
bad.
- The fact
the review of studies could not prove plaque reduction at 1 and 3 months is
very likely because tooth decay and gum disease are slow progressing issues
that would require multi-year studies. It may also be because the
standard for measuring plaque reduction only scores visible surfaces, so plaque
may be reduced on non-visible surfaces such as directly between teeth.
- In March 2015, the same
study review linked above also determined: the very low evidence
for the efficacy [of flossing], however, does not preclude the use of floss. For instance, in
inter-dental situations that only allow for the penetration of a string of
dental floss, floss is the best available tool.
When the U.S. government removed flossing from its 2015-2020
Dietary Guidelines, it did so because the strength of published studies
regarding the effectiveness of flossing were admittedly weak, as the AP reports.
The studies were generally short-term with a small number of participants due
to the cost of running what constitutes high-quality clinical trials.
Aside from cost, a clinical study comparing patients who did and
did not floss would also mean exposing and even encouraging control group
patients to worsen their oral health – and watch as it happens without
intervention. In the research world, this is considered unethical. We don’t
allow people to develop diseases as part of research, and that helps protect
every patient in the United States.
According to dental experts including the DentaQuest Institute’s
Dr. Brian Nový, Director of
Practice Improvement, the lack of long-term clinical trials is also because
there is already significant scientific evidence indicating how cavities form
and how to prevent them.
Clinical trials don’t investigate how teeth decay, they examine
new types of interventions. Oral health experts thus have relied on evidence
extrapolated from shorter term studies as well as years of clinical experience
and practice standards.
We know the easiest way to prevent cavities is to keep your mouth
clean and minimize plaque, and that premise is incorporated into many clinical
trials because it is accepted as standard oral hygiene practice.
While small, this particular study correlates with the evidence
dentists see every day among their patients – flossing creates a healthier
mouth and less disease.
“The real problem is that
the modern American diet is full of refined carbohydrates, which has changed
the type of plaque that forms on our teeth,” Dr. Nový notes. “It is much stickier and more dangerous and everyone
should want to keep it off their teeth if they want to avoid dental problems.”
Tooth decay and gum disease can occur anywhere that food debris
and plaque accumulate. The ideal spot is between teeth since it is difficult for
the toothbrush bristles to remove or even attempt to remove any of the debris.
That is why flossing or use of an inter-dental brush is recommended - to best
remove the food debris that would remain between the gums and the teeth where a
toothbrush cannot fit.
In response to the AP article, Dr. Robert Compton, Chief Dental
Officer, DentaQuest and President, DentaQuest Institute, recalled an
observation frequently used by health experts: the evidence to support the
effectiveness of parachutes is weak because there has never been a double-blind
randomized controlled trial to demonstrate effectiveness. That does not mean
that parachutes are not effective. It just means no one has conducted expensive
research that compared the effectiveness of somebody jumping with a parachute
to a control group jumping without one.
“There's not enough money to conduct research for cancer cures and
treatment for heart disease,” said Dr. Compton, adding, “if there isn’t funding
for life-saving interventions, there will likely never be funding for the kind
of research the AP reports would be required to sanction flossing as a
recommended oral health habit.”
While flossing may be a habit that is difficult for people to
connect with, it definitely helps remove food debris from hard-to-reach places.
It is a low-cost, easy-to-use intervention that has the potential to improve
the oral health of many, in particular those already suffering from dental
disease.
This, among other reasons, is why oral health clinicians Tim
Iafolla of the National Institutes of Health and Wayne Aldredge of the American
Academy of Periodontology both told the AP they maintain flossing is important.