Talk:Dental floss

Hygiene prevalence

The line that says "nearly all Americans brush their teeth" is ridiculous. I think there should be a source immediately for all those percentages and numbers being thrown around. I for one know that nowhere near "all" Americans brush their teeth. [unsigned]

Spam?

SPAM In The NONOBJECTIVE PHOTO showing J&J's well known "Reach" "Access" brand of Floss Holder (WHEN ALSO the well known "J&J" FLOSS itself is indeed LISTED under BRANDED flosses) does indeed appear to demonstrate a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and therefore THE holder phto and associated text are indeed SPAM!== 02:17, 29 November 2006 SoLongBaby (Talk | contribs) (→SPAM -Reverted Because Photo is an Ad which is Spam as is associated text!)

No one sees it as spam. Please point out what secion of WP:SPAM is in violation. --Ronz 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't even addressing why the text is spam. Please do so if you want to convince anyone. --Ronz 02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it a conflict of interest? I have seen no evidence that the uploader, nor the editors who want to keep the image, would personally benefit from the image. And the brand cannot be discerned from either the photo itself nor the caption. Should Wikipedia remove all images of commercial products? --Ginkgo100 ^talk 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Photo of VISUAL Advertising Spam of A floss-holder-PRODUCT Made by a WELL KNOWN & listed "Floss Manufacturer ; and reverted Associated text 18:49, 21 December 2006 SoLongBaby

"Visual advertising spam" is not an agreed upon reason to remove an image. Please point out wiki policy or guideline that supports your position. The text doesn't mention any product, so there's no reason for it's removal (and you've not given one). If there is something specific in the text, please explain what it is so it can be discussed. --Ronz 16:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLOngBaby, cease your constant reversions on this image and text...the image is not identifying as to who the manufactorer is so I can see no big deal on this matter...it definitely is not spam or advertising to have the image.--MONGO 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLongBaby: "DENTAL FLOSS is just that, but a floss holder is NOT dental floss per se. Therefore, a floss holder photo probably would be better off on another page called a STUB whether or not it is advertsing/SPAM. Floss is floss and a holder is a holder." .--SoLongBaby 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus is that it stays here. When there is enough information on it to be separated into another article, it can be done then. --Ronz 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible refs for holders etc

The Canadian Dental Association and the American Dental Association both recommend use of dental tape or a floss holder to make flossing easier [1] [2] [3]. --Ronz 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"To make flossing easier, try using a plastic floss holder or use dental tape." [4] --Ronz 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"If flossing feels awkward or if your fingers always seem to get tangled, try using a plastic floss holder..." [5]

"If you find it difficult to manipulate long strands of floss, consider using a special floss holder." "People who have trouble handling dental floss may find it easier to use interdental cleaners." [6]

"If you find it difficult to manipulate long strands of floss, consider using a special floss holder." [7]

"Children who do their own flossing may find that a floss holder makes the task easier—and for parents who are helping, a holder can diminish the risk being bitten by those clean little chompers." [8] --Ronz 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

USE

Deleted last two sentences that cannot be verified and appear to be unreliable information. --WhyNot1 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the state of the article, I think this is a bit premature. --Ronz 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain how it's unreliable, it's common sense that vibration better penetrates the gumline, it operates under the same principles as an electric toothbrush. The part you removed was worded to explain why this was. It doesn't require verification if it's a logical statement. I'm restoring it. Btw, get a user page. Tyciol 13:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Causes of reduced bleeding with regular flossing

One cause that is accepted is that due to the cleaning of bacterial collections, the gums do not become enflamed, and therefore more prone to bleeding. Isn't it reasonable that toughening of the gum tissue due to stress from floss, and the healing of lacerations, might have something to do with it? Our skin builds calluses, and many other tissues of the body toughen in response to stress. Tyciol 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dental floss

Dental floss should always be merely gently inserted between teeth, and gently below the gum line which is known as the gingival margin. Never jam floss between teeth. Typically floss is availbale flavored or plain, that is, unflavored. Floss comes waxed or unwaxed. --WhyNot1 2:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Dental floss is merely either a bundle of thin nylon filaments or a plastic made of "Teflon" ePTFE or UHMWPE polyethylene ribbon used to remove particles of food from between teeth and dento-bacterial plaque which daily grows on and is adhered to teeth surfaces. That is why everyone must brush and floss daily. --WhyNot1 2:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Dental floss is typically available flavored or unflavored whether or not waxed or unwaxed. Flavors include mint, cinnimon and bubble gum. --WhyNot1 2:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pubic Hair?

Should we mention in the middle ages long pubic hair was often used by people as far back as the 14^th Century for floss?--Wiggstar69 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Source to cite? Why would it be pubic hair specifically? Why not long hair from the head, or from a horse's tail/mane? Was this just an odd joke? — ¾-10 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Directions

"Dental floss does not clean the interproximal areas beneath the contact point, because the area is concave." Huh? Is the "contact point" where the upper and lower teeth come together, or where a tooth comes close to the tooth in front or behind? And what is an "interproximal area"? Maybe a drawing would help. Mcswell (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

I removed the popular culture section. It contained only two items. One in-passing reference from Doctor Who, and a reference to Montana (Frank Zappa song), that deals with growing dental floss on a farm, not with floss and flossing as such. Dr bab 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds consistent with WP:TRIVIA to me. Good work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonafide Hygienist?

Removed IMAGE because NO bonafide hygienist wears such loose latex gloves. The latex gloves must be fit tight and every credentialed hygienist knows THAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by THeHygienist (talk • contribs) 00:52, 17 May 2007

I've restored the image, since this article is about dental floss, rather than hygienists or gloves. --Ronz 01:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about disposable flossing things?

I think a section could be added. I think they are convenient for work.

Clandestine floss party

What's up with that picture? Is it from a hazing ritual? Why are the lights off? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dental Tape

Maybe there should be some mention dental tape as well. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Flossing before brushing

The article states that the ADA recommends flossing after brushing, but the ADA seems to specifically suggest that it is better to floss before brushing per http://www.ada.org/ada/seal/floss.asp . I apologize for any formatting errors I may have made in creating this entry. -B.Stewart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.6.33.247 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to look into this issue, since I was always taught by my dentists (when I first began flossing in the late 1970s) that flossing came *after* brushing, and for good reason: brushing can push food particles into the crevices between teeth.

The reasoning cited for flossing first -- so that brushing can push fluoride toothpaste into those same crevices without its being removed by flossing -- seems seriously irrational: Fluoride is a poison, and to leave it in one's mouth where it is likely to be swallowed seems to be very poor advice.

I will check this question out with the ADA et al. and report back.Daqu (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Research and Science

Where is it? 121.209.148.194 (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's no evidence here that flossing does anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.4.150 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

here´s the proof that flossing doesn´t seem to be effective. Hujoel P.P, Cunha-Cruz J., Banting D.W., Loesche W.J.: Dental Flossing and Interproximal Caries: a Systematic Review. Journal of Dental Research 85, 4, 2006, page 298-30

Our aim was to assess, systematically, the effect of flossing on interproximal caries risk. Six trials involving 808 subjects, ages 4 to 13 years, were identified. There were significant study-to-study differences and a moderate to large potential for bias. Professional flossing performed on school days for 1.7 years on predominantly primary teeth in children was associated with a 40% caries risk reduction (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.76; p-value, < 0.001). Both three-monthly professional flossing for 3 years (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–1.19; p-value, 0.32) and self-performed flossing in young adolescents for 2 years (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.20; p-value, 0.93) did not reduce caries risk . No flossing trials in adults or under unsupervised conditions could be identified. Professional flossing in children with low fluoride exposures is highly effective in reducing interproximal caries risk. These findings should be extrapolated to more typical floss-users with care, since self-flossing has failed to show an effect.

I´m a non-native english speaker, so if one of you native english speaker would like to add this peace of information to the article , I´d be very gratefull. --Bhuddu2 (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesnt say that flossing is not effective. It appears to say that flossing is effective in reducing caries only in certain circumstances.

As the article already documents, flossing is effective for the reduction of gum diseases. The sourced review states, "None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects." --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

and what´s this summary then?

....." These findings should be extrapolated to more typical floss-users with care, since self-flossing has failed to show an effect." --Bhuddu2 (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The context is the effectiveness of flossing on the reduction of caries. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

your right. It´s only about caries. Yet, I wouldn´t have a problem if the context (in which the ineffectiveness occures) is mentioned. It´s not my goal to totally discredit dental flossing. I just would like to make sure all relevant information about dental flossing is on the table. --Bhuddu2 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One more study from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138178

Abstract OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this study was to assess systematically the adjunctive effect of both flossing and toothbrushing versus toothbrushing alone on plaque and gingivitis.
MATERIALS:

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched through December 2007 to identify appropriate studies. The variables of plaque and gingivitis were selected as outcomes. RESULTS:

Independent screening of titles and abstracts of 1166 MEDLINE-Pubmed and 187 Cochrane papers resulted in 11 publications that met the eligibility criteria. Mean values and SD were collected by data extraction. Descriptive comparisons are presented for brushing alone or brushing and flossing. A greater part of the studies did not show a benefit for floss on plaque and clinical parameters of gingivitis. A meta-analysis was performed for the plaque index and gingival index.

CONCLUSIONS The dental professional should determine, on an individual patient basis, whether high-quality flossing is an achievable goal. In light of the results of this comprehensive literature search and critical analysis, it is concluded that a routine instruction to use floss is not supported by scientific evidence. --Bhuddu2 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I´ve found 2 links that review the above studies in the well-respected Nature magazin. I´d say that this would make the studies credible. --Bhuddu2 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/v7/n3/full/6400425a.html
http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/v10/n3/abs/6400666a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuddu2 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Benefits References

The benefits section references reference 4. However reference 4 does not in anyway back up the statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.4.150 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The source says, in part: "Plaque ... can cause the enamel to weaken, eventually causing tooth decay. ... Plaque that is not removed with thorough daily brushing and cleaning between teeth can eventually harden into calculus or tartar."

Thus: cleaning between teeth (flossing) removes plaque, which otherwise can cause tooth decay (dental caries). Maybe something a bit more direct would do the job? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added additional refs to back up all of the benefits listed. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The link is dead. I´d probably remove it if nobody else does it or provides a replacement. --Bhuddu2 (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is something wrong with the source itself, we do not (usually) remove sources due to dead links. Instead, please tag the dead link ({{dl}}) or replace it with an archived version (often available at archive.org). Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I´ve fixed the dead link --Bhuddu2 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Life expectancy

"Flossing regularly can add up to six years to your life expectancy"

I've been trying to find a solid, WP:MEDRS source for this. So far I've found a few gerontologists making the claim, though the number of years differs. I've also found a study linking flossing to general health awareness.

I'd like the tagged material to remain a few days more to alert others of the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a bit of a search through the medical journals to try and find the link between flossing and life expectancy, and I think I've figured out where it has come from. While there are loads of web 'health' sites that make the claim, the main medical evidence that probably created this is realated to periodonatal / gum disease. There have been a few studies which have found links between periodontal disease and heart problems. The reasons for this are unclear and whether or not its causal (As in - does gum disease cause cardiac problems? or are people who take care of their mouths less also likely to look after their health? - this is where your link to health awareness comes in). It could be worth mentioning that good oral hygiene is related to fewer cardio issues, but I dont think its appropriate to put in terms of life expectancy. The reason I was swift to cut the text out originally is that medical studies rarely if ever put things in terms of life expectancy gain - its more likely to be x% less heart attacks over a x years. Also 6 years is quite huge in terms of life expectancy so it didnt seem realistic. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Link: New Study Confirms Periodontal Disease Linked to Heart Disease

We have a brief mention of heart disease in the same sentence, though I've not checked the source.

The study I found about health awareness is: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118621928/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have have the connections to health / cardio included, it was more the wording of the unambiguous causal life expectancy extension that I thought was a bit iffy. It just needs a few words changed to be good. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The unreferenced assertion in this article that flossing increases life expectancy either needs to be referenced or removed. Such an extraordinary claim that a tooth cleaning method can increase life expectancy (notwithstanding the protection it affords against gum disease and heart disease, which are already mentioned) surely cannot be made without giving some kind of evidence. If there is a paper verifying this claim then, of course, reinsert this statement, but until someone gives a reliable source, I think it's best left out of the article. As such have removed this claim. Please note that a reference for this claim would have to be from a solid source such as a peer-reviewed paper. Unnachamois (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mustache picture

Why do we have a picture of a man with a mustache getting his teeth flossed? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It shows how dental floss, the subject of this article, is used. Is there something about the mustache, in particular, that you object to? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)