Every number, traced to its source

The standard

Before anything publishes here, it passes seven rules. They are written for the reader we most expect to check them: a dental director, a clinical reviewer, a skeptical hygienist with PubMed open in the next tab.

1. Every claim traces to a primary source. Government health surveys (CDC, NHANES), Cochrane systematic reviews, and peer-reviewed journal articles, not blog posts citing blog posts. If a statistic reaches us through a secondary route, we follow it back to the original before we use it.
2. Associations are called associations. Observational findings are never phrased as causation. Nothing on this site says any tool "prevents" or "cures" gum disease. The honest verbs ("is associated with," "reduces inflammation in trials") are the only verbs we use.
3. Self-reported data is labeled self-reported. Most flossing statistics come from surveys where people describe their own habits. Readers deserve to know that, so they can weigh it.
4. Insurer figures stay attributed to the insurer. When a number comes from an insurance company's internal claims analysis, it is presented as "per that company's own analysis", never as independent research, because it isn't.
5. Manufacturer-funded studies are excluded or disclosed. Where a finding rests on industry funding, we either leave it out or say so plainly and lead with a conflict-free source instead.
6. Modest evidence is described as modest. When a Cochrane review rates its own certainty as low or moderate, that qualifier appears in our article, not just in the review.
7. Untraceable statistics do not publish. If a number cannot be followed to a locatable primary source, it does not appear here, no matter how widely the internet repeats it, and no matter how well it would serve the argument.

Why so strict

Because recycled marketing statistics are endemic in dental content. Numbers born in a press release get repeated by a blog, cited by another blog, and eventually quoted as settled science, with no primary study behind any of it. A library whose entire purpose is trust cannot participate in that. One debunkable statistic would cost more credibility than a hundred careful articles could earn back, so the filter runs one way: when in doubt, it stays out.

How articles are written and reviewed

Every article in this library follows the same pipeline. A claim list is assembled first: each statistic graded against its primary source before a word of prose is written. Articles are then drafted from that graded list by the Improving Dental editorial team, and every citation is re-verified against the original source (the journal article, the government survey, the systematic review) before publication. Claims that cannot be traced are removed, not softened.

A note on clinical review, stated plainly: articles in this library do not yet carry clinical reviewer bylines. When a practicing dentist or dental hygienist reviews an article, that article will name them, their credentials, and the date of review, visibly on the page and in its machine-readable metadata. Until then, we claim no clinical endorsement. Every article stands on the primary sources it cites, all of which are listed below and linked from the article itself.

Found an error? If a citation on this site is wrong (a misattributed study, a number that doesn't match its source, a certainty rating stated too strongly), we want to know, and we will correct it and note the correction. The “last reviewed” date on every page reflects the most recent review of its content.