Malcolm_Xtasy said:

Y'all are some disgusting ass motherfuckers. I brush twice a day and floss at least 3 times a week. I don't wanna see any threads from you fuckboys about how girls don't want to stand within 10 feet of you and you're wondering what you could possibly be doing wrong

---

Malcolm_Xtasy said:

People seem to be confusing dental hygeine with not having cavities. If you breath smells rank as fuck I'm pretty sure "oh but I don't have any cavities babe" isn't gonna save you

---

Exactly cavities aren't the only tell tale sign of unhealthy teeth.

I'm gonna go brush my right now! And then smoke a cig

The mint taste goood with the tobacco

makaveli8x8 said:

I mean is there even any peer reviewed double blind multiple tested and studied scientific journals that actually prove, and document the difference in a person's teeth comparing a brusher and a non brusher, that ISN"T referencing people from 2 million decades ago inwhich they had poor nutrition ontop of most likely cracking nuts with their teeth and other habits of the time that would flaw such comparisons with the delicate butterflys of todays standards?????????


Im just saying, sometimes when im brushing, or about to brush, i just think to myself, god damit NOT AGAIN, NOT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anyone else get that feeling sometimes?

So then i start thinking, how the fuck do these 60 year olds manage to keep doing it?  When they pull out that toothbrush and look at it, they must seriously be considering hulk smashing things

---

Bigfeely123 said:

Some of y'all need Jesus!

---

makaveli8x8 said:

if it solidifies then wouldn't that mean it would help fill in gaps preventing food and bacteria from getting into your gums?

---

makaveli8x8 said:

i dunno, i doubt there's been much research into going against selling products

---

Quote:

Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Tooth erosion is a problem for professional wine tasters (exogenous erosion from frequent exposure to wine acids) and for people with gastro oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and bulimia who experience frequent reflux of gastric contents into the mouth (endogenous erosion from mainly HCl). The objective in this study was to determine whether plaque/pellicle could provide teeth with any protection from two common erosive acids, using an in vivo-in vitro technique.
METHODS:

Tiles of human tooth enamel and root surfaces were prepared from six extracted, unerupted third molar teeth and sterilized. Mandibular stents were prepared for six volunteer subjects and the tiles bonded to the buccal flanges of these stents. They were worn initially for three days to permit a layer of pellicle and plaque to form over the tile surfaces, and for a further 10 days of experimentation. Following cleaning of the plaque/ pellicle layer from the tiles on the right side flange, all the tiles were submerged in either 0.06M HCl or white wine for an accumulated time of 600 and 1500 minutes, respectively. Depths of erosion were determined using light microscopy of sections of the enamel and root tiles. SEM of the lesion surfaces was carried out to investigate the nature of erosive damage and of plaque/pellicle remnants.
RESULTS:

Retained plaque was found to significantly inhibit dental erosion on enamel, from contact with both HCl and wine, compared with that resulting following its removal. However, it was found to provide no significant protection on root surfaces. SEM analysis of the tile surfaces revealed marked etching of enamel on the cleaned surfaces, and considerable alteration to the appearance of remaining plaque and pellicle on most surfaces.
CONCLUSION:

Within the limitations of numbers of specimens, dental plaque/pellicle provided a significant level of protection to tooth enamel against dental erosion from simulated gastric acids and from white wine, using an in vivo-in vitro model. It was unable to provide any significant protection to root surfaces from these erosive agents. Possible reasons for this difference are explored.

---

makaveli8x8 said:

that research goes in to prove brushing removes plaque, so then they say plaque is bad.  But they might not have went and researched to find out of plaque has positive benefits as well.  Its one of the major flaws in science, they always goin in from one angle trying to prove something, once they have they ignore all the other possible angles and assume there's only 1 answer

to say plaque is 100% bad i don't believe is a fair and accurate statement, i think there should be more research.  Plaque typically forms around gumlines right, it just so happens it also usually forms around the gums that have resended is that the word?  Basically it forms a dam that prevents fluid from going under the gumline.  Now maybe its bad for the enamal, but at the same time i could see how it might also have benifits to it by preventing acidic fluids from coming into contact with it and eroding it.  Like i said maybe it does erode the enamel itself, but is there research comparing the 2, to see which is worse?  That example right there is something im sure was not looked into.  Science im sure went the profit route and mearly tested if it itself harms enamel, but the greater scope of things you need to consider all the factors which covers much more than just 1 example i thought of off the top of my head

---