Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

Current final year dental student pitching in here. While dentists of the past may push for unnecessary annual radiographs, the curriculum in dental school has changed to favour evidence-based dentistry. Annual bitewings are only indicated if you're a high caries risk, and, as the article mentions, 2-3 years if you're low caries risk. So your younger/newer dentist will be following much better protocols (and hopefully not scamming you)!

Slightly worrying that evidence-based dentistry wasn't the default position (though not surprising). I'm always kind of amazed that when I look up the robust evidence for even things as common as flossing, the evidence just...doesn't seem to be there. Let alone all the myriad of dental products from various mouth washes, tooth pastes, brushes and water picks.

How we've ended up regulating medicine to the nth degree, but when it's teeth we're like "oh well, lol", continues to mystify me.

> 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.

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.