Talk:Oral hygiene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gum care section[edit]

Could someone find a reference for this? This seems like a misconception, as putting any unnecessary pressure on the gums can damage the tissue and cause recession (as in tooth brush abrasion), therefore I think this comment should be deleted. The only "gum care" that can be used at home is the appropriate interdental cleaner for the patient (i.e. floss, wood picks, proxibrushes, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentdude (talkcontribs) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oral Hygiene Instructions[edit]

Why would one have an issue of slobbering Jessicabeebe (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wider Context[edit]

This is an odd article to me. It reads almost like more of a how-to guide or a pamphlet you might get from a dentist's office than what I think of as an encyclopedia article. There is no thorough discussion of what oral hygiene actually means in broader anthropological and historical contexts. This is instead just a recitation of the current dogma of oral hygiene and our modern oral hygiene practices and rituals. Now, of course, I'm not disputing the correctness of any of this data in particular, merely drawing attention to the fact that there seems to be little if any discussion of the actual evidence to support these claims and how we came to think as we now do of oral hygiene. There have historically, and still into this day, been other hypotheses. For example, I remember reading in Micheal Pollan's book In Defense of Food that our current ideas on oral hygiene didn't emerge until the middle of the last century during an epidemic level of oral health problems. Another competing idea at that time was that changes in diet and lifestyle linked to industrialization and modern society could have been the culprit. While one often hears historians casually talk about the "fact" that historical peoples would have lost most of their teeth by 18, the evidence for this seems less than convincing. A study from the early 20th century looked at "primitive" peoples of the world and found them to on average have fewer cavities and oral health problems than peoples living on western diets and living in industrialized societies. When you think about it, it does seem odd that natural selection would allow for any species to evolve to a point where it would be toothless by the time it reached adulthood or to require constant active attention from the individual. One wonders if perhaps this reflects a cultural adaptation rather than a biological necessity. These kinds of issues and a wider historical discussion of oral health as a cultural, and historical phenomenon in addition to simply a medical topic, would greatly improve this article. Thelastemperor (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Many people have the idea that they should brush their teeth in the morning, in addition to after meals. Mention if this merely wastes the protective effects of saliva and should be discouraged. Jidanni (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrigators' benefits[edit]

Reference number 9 (about irrigators' benefits) is broken, so mb someone can found the new source or delete it (I don't wanna mess in different language wiki myself). Zarutskij Svyatoslav (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Detrimental foods[edit]

The current text reads "Other carbohydrates, especially cooked starches, e.g. crisps/potato chips, may also damage teeth, although to a lesser degree since starch has to be converted by enzymes in saliva first". Does anybody know of/can they find any published research to back this up? I noticed an article today regarding dental caries in the UK Daily Mail and was really interested in the original source of the statement on crisps/potato chips and dental caries - the only other time I'd heard this was a recent(ish) episode of the BBC TV programme QI which asked "What is the worst thing to eat for tooth decay?" and the answer given was crisps and raisins [see here:]

I wouldn't want to cite either of these sources as 'solid' evidence and would be really interested to see if there was actually any references to back the statement up (personal curiosity although I do work in a related industry).

Sleepysod (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When you see dubious content, you may add the {{citation}} or {{dubious}} tag. Better yet, if you find reliable sources, e.g., with Google Scholar, you may correct the content. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the study on starch vs sugar: He doesn't make the conclusion that crisps are worse than candy, but simply states it stays in the mouth longer. I don't know about the scientific consensus though. Also came here because of the QI episode. Niklsss (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


The information regarding the importance of flossing is incorrect. The reason for flossing is the removal of dental biofilm (bacteria) and less the removal of food/debris. The effectiveness of flossing through patients has not been proven yet. Professional flossing is very difficult and systematic reviews have shown no evidence on clinical parameters. This part needs to be rewritten: Berchier, C., Slot, D., Haps, S. and Van der Weijden, G. (2008), The efficacy of dental floss in addition to a toothbrush on plaque and parameters of gingival inflammation: a systematic review. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 6: 265–279. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latrobebohs (talkcontribs) 04:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oral hygiene[edit]

What affects reason why you might be slobbering

Jessicabeebe (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)