Good points all around. But there are some serious design flaws in these studies. For example, a study which “disproved” the link between oral disease and preterm birth:
This “study” has nothing to do with the diagnosis and treatment of oral biofilms, right? This is just plaque removal and deep cleaning; which ironically actually contribute to bacteremia in some patients.
The topic I posted yesterday is one of hundreds of studies that spell out the oral-cardiovascular link in spades. It is NIH-sponsored research, if that matters to anyone:
http://www.biofilmcommunity.org/f11/oral-health-cardiovascular-disease-95/
It appears that even this study was constrained by culturing techniques. But even then, the results were compelling. Again, this and other studies are handicapped as they do not include designs to account for biofilm infections — which are non-planktonic. Happy to be wrong here; either way, I see it as a progress – and validation of the obvious.
At the turn of the last century (1900), dentists were taught this: bad gums = bad heart. Are we going backwards? Why is it so hard to admit what has been known for centuries, maybe longer?
In the meantime, can’t we all agree it is smart to keep bacterial biofilm off our teeth?! 😉