Skip to content
  • Home
  • About me
  • Clinic
  • Implant-Dentistry
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Courses
  • Resources
  • Home
  • About me
  • Clinic
  • Implant-Dentistry
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Courses
  • Resources
Contact
Implant + Dentistry – Nikos Mattheos
  • Home
  • About me
  • Clinic
  • Implant-Dentistry
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Courses
  • Resources

To floss or not to floss?

  • Nikos Mattheos
  • February 7, 2019
  • One Comment

…In the last few weeks, I’ve had a few patients asking me what’s the purpose of dental floss and if it’s all in vain..! Some few went even further to give me that suspicious “hmmm -really?” look when I recommended interdental brushes! …and even the most disciplined of my patients have come across the thought that so many kilometres of this tiny white ribbon have been wasted in vain…

So, is it true? Has the world come upside down? Is flossing useless?

Well, to start with, don’t rush to flush the floss down the toilet..!   Let’s give it a calmer thought!   I think what we are caught up with in the case of flossing is not about a medical myth being busted, but rather yet another example of the so called “evidence based Hysteria”. 

Evidence Based Medicine is a concept developed to free the world of healthcare from individual opinions of all sorts of “experts” , “gurus” and allow decisions to be based on unbiased, objective,  scientific reserach data. Soon however, this noble cause was misinterpreted by some as  the demand  for the highest level of research in order to accept that a procedure is justified. The highest level of evidence is a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) , something that requires significant time and costs to be materialised and which in some cases is simply impossible for technical or ethical reasons. Full stop, emphasis on the “impossible”.

 In the last few years however, many  “hysteric” calls have surfaced about several medical procedures, implying that unless there is a prospective or  randomised clinical trial to support it, a procedure  is based on “weak” evidence or is unfounded. 

It is well established that plaque is the cause of periodontal disease and similarly that flossing (or  better “interdental cleaning” of which flossing is one way ) can disturb biofilm and prevent disease. Clinical and in vitro studies provide a good understanding for this. However, we do not have the highest level of evidence to prove it, like a randomised trial. This  is simply not feasible. Such a trial would take many years and would need to involve many people, as periodontal disease is a very slow process. This people would have to be closely and prospectively observed, to comply for long periods with study requirements and many qualified clinicians to spend time to observe and record the data. The cost of such as study would be huge! The benefits? hmmm…

If you were a funding agency and you sit on one million dollars only, where would you chose to spend? In a study on pediatric cancer or a study about flossing?

Seriously! Furthermore, there is an ethical loophole, as such a study would require a group of patients to be asked to not clean between their teeth for comparison purposes, something no ethical committee will allow!

The recent “mythbusting” news was not saying that flossing does not work. It simply said that the quality of studies we have to show that flossing works is not of the highest level.

Sure. So what? Is flossing yet another conspiracy of the industry?

On this rationale, I can actually say today that the evidence we have that HIV is a sexually transmitted virus is actually even weaker! And this would be true, because there is no clinical experimental study actually proving that HIV is sexually transmitted and if we want to prove this at the highest level of evidence, we will need to sacrifice a couple of hundred volunteers! So before we go on and blame condoms to a conspiracy theory of the industry, think again!

The truth is that flossing is essential for many patients, even if we cant bother to prove it at the highest level of evidence.

It is also true that we scientists have great responsibility when embarking on “mythbusting” Cochrane reviews, in order to prevent misinterpretations that actually will cause more public harm than benefit. Maybe it’s time to reconsider the purpose of spending time and man/hours on systematic reviews which merely just state the obvious. 

At the end of the day, if the evidence for flossing is weak, is because none of us, Periodontists, bothered to produce it! So if you think a randomised clinical trial about flossing is what we need right now, please, go ahead and do it and show us all the truth. 

The rest, in my humble opinion is just too much trouble for nothing. 

Hear the latest news first: Subscribe to my newsletter!

loader

Email Address*

Name

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

1 thought on “To floss or not to floss?”

  1. hgf
    February 29, 2020 at 12:29 am

    Wonderful article! This is the kind of info that are supposed to
    be shared around the web. Disgrace on the seek engines for no longer
    positioning this post upper! Come on over and consult with my site .
    Thank you =)

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Related Posts

  • Featured, Implant Denstistry

Precision Implant Dentistry?

Precision Medicine or P4 is a paradigm of care which considers a patient's individual characteristics to guide diagnosis and treatment. With the wide implementation of a digital workflow, implant dentistry is not fit for P4 practice focused on personalised care, preventive design, predictive algorithms and participatory engagement of the patient.

Read more

  • Nikos Mattheos
  • February 24, 2025
  • 4 Comments
  • Featured, Implant Denstistry

peri-implant mucosa dimensions and emergence profile: a guide for meticulous architects

dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets were first documented more than 25 years ago, so one might wonder why “immediacy” took so long time to mature into the mainstream implantology. The progress of a scientific protocol however, is rarely a straight line to implementation. Perceived breakthroughs are often followed by backlash and enthusiasm can be at times interchangeable with periods of caution. In the end, technology is also a major catalyst to help a vision make it safe to the mainstream practice. How did immediacy develop from the first “immediate” implants into the current modern concept as a workflow? Let’s take a closer look into a long and winding road!

Read more

  • Nikos Mattheos
  • August 30, 2024
  • 5 Comments
  • Featured, Implant Denstistry

“Immediacy” revisited: beyond the extraction socket!

dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets were first documented more than 25 years ago, so one might wonder why “immediacy” took so long time to mature into the mainstream implantology. The progress of a scientific protocol however, is rarely a straight line to implementation. Perceived breakthroughs are often followed by backlash and enthusiasm can be at times interchangeable with periods of caution. In the end, technology is also a major catalyst to help a vision make it safe to the mainstream practice. How did immediacy develop from the first “immediate” implants into the current modern concept as a workflow? Let’s take a closer look into a long and winding road!

Read more

  • Nikos Mattheos
  • February 14, 2024
  • 8 Comments
Facebook-f Twitter Youtube Linkedin

About me

  • About Me
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Implant Dentistry

get started

  • Courses
  • Resources
  • Research
  • Feedback

Newsletter

Don’t miss our news and  updates!

  • Home
  • About me
  • Clinic
  • Implant-Dentistry
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Courses
  • Resources