Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

> the robust evidence for even things as common as flossing

I'm always baffled by all the discussions about flossing, as it's something that can be very easily verified empirically: one can just floss for a month, then stop doing it for another month, then resume and get a feeling for how the gums react. If they bleed or burn (lightly), then the efficacy is evident; if not... lucky person! No need for research either way.

In my case, I don't need to floss daily, but I still need to do it regularly. Two weeks without flossing, and I'll definitely feel the burn once I resume flossing.

When I encounter these baffling things, I just remember how my grandparents and everyone around them were hacking their lungs out and everyone smoked tobacco everywhere all the time. You’d think the common sense approach would be to assume inhaling dense smoke directly into your lungs was not healthy, especially given the “look around you” factor of ailments (cancer, emphysema, etc). Yet still, there was a large group of people who refused to believe it could be unhealthy without hard evidence.

The tobacco industry was a contributing factor but common sense and independent thought was already gone or it wouldn’t have worked for as long as it did.

What evidence is that exactly? It’s evidence that your gums don’t like being traumatized by a small string of plastic?

it's the other way round for me - if there's nothing stuck in my gums, flossing feels no more painful than washing my hands. whenever it hurts, it's because there's something stuck in the gum causing an inflammation. once I manage to clean it, either with the floss stick or a small metal brush, the next time I floss it doesn't hurt in the slightest.

How is "if you don't floss for a month it hurts when you floss" evidence flossing is good for you?

It's the same phenomenon as something like the calluses guitar players get. If they take a few weeks off, it'll hurt a bit when they play. That doesn't mean the activity improves their health. It means if you poke a part of the body enough it handles being poked better.

Because the bleeding is caused by inflammation of the gum tissue from the germs that get trapped up there when you don't floss. This then slowly breaks down your gums. This is why your dental hygienist uses that metal pick to measure under your gums; it should only go in 2-3mm and not bleed.

It is baffling and sadly pervasive. There are multiple such little tests of minor consequences, that people could just try out for themselves for a month and observe how their body reacts. But they're waiting for "evidence". It seems that we live in times where it's been drilled into us that if how we feel isn't backed by statistics, then we're probably not feeling it.

It's not universal, but gingivitis (a minor gum disease) causes inflammation (thus pain). Some people are more prone to it due to their teeth arrangement. Some teeth tend to trap food, which then rots, promotes bacteria, and so forth. Flossing helps alleviate this. The initial floss tends to be strikingly different to the follow-ups (not unexpected). More bleeding and more pain (because of existing inflammation), also more gunk and funk (rotten food particles and bacteria).

One notable effect when regular flossing is sustained is that your whole mouth just feels generally less sensitive and healthy. Less pain when you chew, your breath feels fresher for longer. The reverse can also be noticed when you stop flossing.

As I said, this is not universal since not everyone has the same teeth arrangement. Which is one more argument in favor of not waiting for evidence. It's considerably cheaper to just get some 3$ dental floss, try it for a month, and see for yourself.