This Daily Habit Can Damage Your Brain, Disrupt Your Bones, and Stain and Pit Your Teeth

Story at-a-glance

• On March 15, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities. The bill will now go to the Senate
• According to the text of the bill, the warning would read, in part: “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis.” But dental fluorosis is not “just cosmetic.” It can also be an indication that other tissues, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, has been overexposed to fluoride as well
• A repeated theme in recent cases where communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is the shifting of the burden of proof. Rather than citizens taking on the burden of proving that fluoride is harmful and should be removed, champions in positions of some authority have managed to end water fluoridation in their communities by demanding that any fluoride product used must be able to prove its compliance with the regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water

By Dr. Mercola

The largest state legislature in the U.S. recently passed a bill mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities. On March 15, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of the bill.

Thanks to a 13-2 recommendation from the House Resources, Recreation, and Development committee, there was no debate over the bill on the House floor. The bill will now go to the Senate. According to the text of the billⁱ , the warning would read:

"Your public water supply is fluoridated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis. Consult your child's health care provider for more information."

Why Infants Should Not Drink Fluoridated Water

Two years ago, a study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association found that fluoride intake during a child's first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formulaⁱⁱ.

Dental fluorosis - a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled - is one of the first signs of over-exposure to fluoride. Eventually, it can result in badly damaged teeth, and worse... It's important to realize that dental fluorosis is NOT "just cosmetic."

It can also be an indication that the rest of your body, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. In other words, if fluoride is having a visually detrimental effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it's also damaging other parts of your body, such as your bones. After all, bone is living tissue that is constantly being replaced through cellular turnover.

Bone building is a finely balanced, complicated process and fluoride has been known to disrupt this process ever since the 1930s.

While generally supportive of water fluoridation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does admit that using fluoridated water to mix infant formula may not be in the best interest of your baby's developing teeth. According to their websiteⁱⁱⁱ:

"Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis."

The CDC also states:

"In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources - water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products - contributes to enamel fluorosis."

The lack of formal and easy-to-find warnings about the hazard of using fluoridated water to make infant formula has, and continues to be, a major source of contention. New Hampshire will set a marvelous example for other states if their bill mandating infant fluoride warnings on water bills in fluoridated communities is enacted.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

In writing this article, I was in contact with Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, who kindly shared a couple of other success stories with me. A repeated theme in some of the recent cases where communities successfully removed fluoride from their water supply is the shifting of the burden of proof. Rather than citizens taking on the burden of proving that fluoride is harmful and shouldn't be added, a more successful strategy has been to hold those making claims accountable for delivering proof that the specific fluoridation chemical being used fulfills their health and safety claims, and is in compliance with all regulations, laws, and risk assessments already required for safe drinking water.

"It's important to accentuate that these strategic actions focused on the accountability for the actions surrounding the selection and use of the specific substance, rather than just opposition to the public policy where supporters routinely find cover for their actions," Green says.

The word 'Champion' may elicit reverie-like thoughts of a bygone era, but Champions—while rare—can still be found today. A true Champion can be defined as a person in a position of some authority who can reasonably make a probing request, and, most importantly, has the authority to declare that a distorted response—one that does not answer questions directly, or a non-response, simply isn't good enough.

Frank Mora, previous Chairman of a joimt water board in the State of New York, is one example of such a Champion. While neither 'easy' nor 'fast,' Mora's dedication to the ethics of stewardship eventually led to the discontinuation of the addition of fluoride to their water supply in October 2009. The water board, who originally supported the public policy of fluoridation based on endorsements, rejected the use of the hydrofluosilicic acid fluoridation chemical without taking any stance on whether or not it might do harm... Rather the rejection was based on the Board's inability to confirm the compliance of the product with already established laws and regulations for safe drinking water.

Ironically, water fluoridation continued for about a month after the Board made their decision. The reason for this was because the hydrofluosilicic acid they still had on hand would have to have been disposed of as hazardous waste. The cost of proper disposal was considered excessive, so they used up their last reserves before discontinuing it. It's rather amazing to consider that the hazardous waste facility was more committed to identifying the contents and contaminants of the product before they would accept it for treatment than water departments are before adding it to our drinking water!

Endorsements Versus Due Diligence...

A town in Tennessee also found a Champion in its Mayor Robinson, and the town, while keeping its resolution to fluoridate intact, unanimously ended its use of its chosen hydrofluosilicic acid fluoridation substance a couple of years ago, and as of yet have not found a product that is compliant. According to a press release dated June 10, 2011:

"The shift was to a process of sequentially challenging various authorities to dig deeper into the factual basis for endorsements and assurances, and to provide specific documents.

... The Town exchanged letters with the Tennessee Municipal League Risk Management Pool (TML) explaining the Town's inability to extract information on the content and impurities of the product, the refusal of the chemical supplier to provide specific documents required for compliance with law, and evidence that contaminants such as lead and arsenic are admittedly a part of the product. This resulted in TML's lawyerly response that they wouldn't be able to answer with any certainty what liability coverage the Town could count on until TML received a claim.

Not good enough.

"A point that had to be considered," said Robinson, "is that all of these endorsements, and even assurances and guidance from health agencies, doesn't alter the fact that we as the water operator are the only ones that can select and ultimately be responsible for the benefits or harm from consumption of the product. So while it might be nice to take potshots from the sideline, or to repeat the assurances from someone who has no accountability, if we are going to take our role as stewards of the water supply seriously, we don't get to substitute endorsements for due diligence."

What You Might Find if a Champion Performs Due Diligence

Mayor Robinson makes an excellent point, which is that the stewards of the water supply cannot simply substitute endorsements of safety, effectiveness, and regulatory compliance for the public policy, for due diligence on the actual product used. Questions must be asked, and answers must be provided. Ditto for proof in terms of documentation. If it's all on the up-and-up, this should be a fairly straight-forward process. However, those who have taken on the task of performing due diligence on the actual fluoridation chemical have been surprised by the lack of responsiveness and clarity from the very sources of the safety claims. In addition, in the case of the joint water board in New York, they couldn't even get a single straight answer from the chemical manufacturer about their own product.

This isn't surprising when you consider that there's virtually no evidence supporting the safety or effectiveness of the fluoridation chemical used.

"I don't believe we would have known how to navigate through this process without guidance from someone who is fully informed of all of the regulations that should be considered in our decision-making, as even though we are in the business of delivering water, we were not aware of all of the factors, which were not divulged by the sources we usually rely upon," stated Robinson.

First of all, swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to your teeth. It works topically, and not particularly effectively at that. According to the findings of a groundbreaking 2010 study published in the journal Langmuir^iv, the benefits of even topical application of fluoride are highly questionable. The study discovered that the fluorapatite layer formed on your teeth when you apply fluoride is a mere six nanometers thick. To put that into perspective, you need 10,000 of these layers to get the width of a strand of your hair! Scientists now question whether this ultra-thin layer can actually protect your enamel and provide any discernible benefit, considering the fact that simple chewing will quickly eliminate it.

Secondly, swallowing fluoride exposes every tissue in your body to both a drug and a toxic substance.

There is pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, which is used in certain drugs, and adding it to the public water supply equates to forcing a medication on the entire population, without regard for dose or frequency. However, pharmaceutical grade fluoride is not typically what's added to water supplies... No, the fluoride added to municipal water supplies is the toxic byproduct from the fertilizer industry—a rarely-discussed fact that effectively nullifies most if not all studies pertaining to fluoride—they simply have not studied the correct type of fluoride being added to our water.

Another eye-opening fact is that a pea-sized dollop of fluoridated toothpaste contains about the same amount of fluoride as a large glass of water. The difference is that if you swallow more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste, you're instructed to immediately contact Poison Control, while there are no warnings issued for fluoridated water, even though there's no way to control the dose any given person will receive on any given day or throughout their lifetime.

Often Overlooked

Advisory from Jeff Green: One element to be addressed is that many of us who are first exposed to issues such as this enter into a world of anger at injustice, where we see the problem so passionately and so clearly that we carry the burden of proof and are in a hurry to tell others to set it right, viewing anyone who does not immediately agree with our view as opposition that must be overwhelmed with facts and a list of "shoulds."

In this state we look angry, and are easily characterized as a zealot, probably because we are. Asking someone without our passion to join us may not be that inviting.

Should we expect that this would be any different when speaking to authorities and asking them to act?

If you are able to suspend your anger at injustice, able to switch your focus from stating the problem to addressing solutions, there are avenues available.

If you would like to elevate your discussions from the argumentative "he said, she said" to letting the facts declare themselves, and you are in a position of authority from which you can champion the performance of due diligence, contact us for access to guidance and further information.

If you are capable of being an advocate of safe drinking water and would like to assist in identifying a champion for due diligence in your community, contact us for approaches and further information.

10 Facts About Water Fluoridation Everyone Should Know

1. Bottle-fed infants receive the highest doses of fluoride as they rely solely on liquids for food, combined with their small size. A baby being fed formula receives approximately 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant
2. There is not a single process in your body that requires fluoride
3. A multi-million dollar U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) -funded study found no relation between tooth decay and the amount of fluoride ingested by children
4. Water fluoridation cannot prevent the oral health crises that results from inadequate nutrition and lack of access to dental care
5. Water fluoridation is a violation of your individual right to informed consent to medication
6. Forty-one percent of all American children aged 12-15 are now impacted by dental fluorosis, rising to more than sixty percent of children in fluoridated communities
7. The chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies are largely hazardous by-products of the fertilizer industry and have never been required to undergo randomized clinical trials for safety or effectiveness by any regulatory agency in the world
8. The U.S. FDA classifies ingested fluoride for purposes of reducing tooth decay as an "unapproved drug"
9. Ingesting fluoride has been found to damage soft tissues (brain, kidneys, and endocrine system), as well as teeth (dental fluorosis) and bones (skeletal fluorosis). There are also 24 studies demonstrating a strong relationship between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and reduced IQ in children
10. Fluoridation discriminates against those with low incomes. People on low incomes are least able to afford avoidance measures, such as reverse osmosis filters or bottled water

Dr. Mercola - April 24 2012

References:

---

• ⁱ HOUSE BILL 1416-LOCAL, AN ACT relative to a required fluoride statement
• ⁱⁱ Journal of the American Dental Association October 14, 2010; 141(10):1190-1201
• ⁱⁱⁱ CDC May 28, 2010
• ^iv Langmuir. 2010 Dec 21;26(24):18750-9

Source: New Hampshire State Legislature

Root Canals Can Have Devastating Effects on Health

(NaturalNews) Is it wise and prudent to have a root canal? There are issues with root canal therapy that everyone should know before deciding to have one.

There has been recent research that presents valid proof of systemic illnesses that are a direct result from latent infections lingering in filled roots. These conclusions are based on research performed by Dr. Weston Price over a 25 year period in the beginning of the twentieth century.

The research done by Dr. Weston Price discusses how root canals can cause bacteria to become trapped inside the structure of teeth. This can be the cause of many diseases that can be traced to one single source.

A high percentage of chronic degenerative diseases may actually originate from root canals. The most common diseases are circulatory and heart disease. The next common diseases are those involving joints and arthritis.

The allegation is that there was a series of events that led to important information being hidden about seventy years ago by a group of doctors who didn't fully understand the "focal infection theory."

What is the focal infection theory… and how is it connected to root canals?

The focal infection theory says that germs from a central focal infection (decaying teeth, roots, inflamed gum tissues, and tonsils, can metastasize to the heart, eyes, kidneys, lungs, or other organs and tissues. This then spreads the same infection to these new areas. This theory has been proven extensively and is regarded as fact.

Focal infection states that the bacteria can move into surrounding tissues and travel to other locations in the body through the bloodstream. This new location may be an organ or tissue and the new colony will be a new infection for the body.

Currently, however, patients and doctors have been led into complacency by believing that infections are not as serious because of antibiotics. This is simply not true. In the situation of root-filled teeth, the no longer alive tooth does not have blood being supplied to its interior. This means that antibiotics will not reach this area and will not fight any bacteria that exist there.

Dr. Price performed many experiments while conducting his research. One such experiment involved removing an infected tooth from a woman who had severe arthritis. Dr. Price took the infected tooth and implanted it under the skin of a healthy rabbit. Incredibly, within 48 hours the rabbit had severe arthritis as well.

The claim is that all root-filled teeth contain bacteria or other infective agents. It doesn't matter what technique is used or what material is used.

Another important point is that the main part of teeth that appear solid is called "dentin." While this appears solid, it is actually made up of tiny "tubules." In healthy teeth, these tubules will transport a fluid that nourishes the inside of the tooth. A root-filled tooth does not have any fluid circulating through it anymore, but the tubules remain. The bacteria that are present in this area of the root-filled tooth seem to be out of reach of antibiotics. The tiny organisms hiding in the tubules move further in to the interior of the tooth to stay and then multiply.

One more factor that plays an important role in this situation is the fact that large bacteria are common in the mouth. These bacteria will change and adapt to changing conditions. They can shrink to fit small areas and they can also survive on small amounts of food. The organisms that must have oxygen are able to mutate and then survive without oxygen. Because of this adaptation, these organisms can become pathogenic and are able to produce serious disease.
Today's scientists are able to confirm the research conducted by Dr. Price all those years ago. Recent research has shown strains of "streptococcus," "staphylococcus," and "spirochetes" existing in root canals.

Root canals will not make everyone sick. However, current belief is that every root canal filling will leak and this leakage will allow bacteria to invade the structure. The variable between those who become sick with a degenerative disease and those who do not seems to be the strength of a person's immune system. People who are in good health will be able to control the organisms that escape from their teeth and infiltrate other areas of the body.

This is because the white blood cells and other fighters are not constantly busy with other diseases. The immune system is able to prevent new bacterial colonies from taking over other tissues in the body. Over time, however, most people who have had root canals seem to develop various types of systemic symptoms that were not previously present.

If an extraction is necessary, it is now apparent that merely extracting the tooth is not enough. It has been determined that bacteria are present in the tissues and bone just adjacent to a tooth's root. The new recommendation is slow-speed drilling with a burr to remove 1 millimeter of the entire bony socket.

If the tooth is dead and can't be saved, then the best course of action would be to have a root canal with a material called  "Biocalex." "Biocalex" eliminates many of the dangerous bacteria and will cause fewer complications. If this fails, it may be necessary to extract the tooth. It would be best to find a biological dentist for this procedure. Many biological dentists have alternative methods that can save a tooth in some cases.

Sources:  http://www.healingdaily.com/exercis...  -  Root Canal Cover-Up by George Meinig

Be VERY Careful When Replacing Missing Teeth

A dental implant is one option for replacing missing or badly diseased teeth. It is composed of an artificial root that looks like a post or screw and is covered with a dental crown.

Treatment involves the surgical placement of the implant into the jawbone, where it is allowed to fuse to the bone in a process called “osseointegration.”

Once healed, the implant acts as an anchor for an artificial replacement tooth, or crown. The crown is made to blend in with your other teeth and is permanently attached to the implant.

A typical dental implant is made of pure titanium and/or a titanium alloy.

In fact, titanium alloys are widely used in both medicine and dentistry, for dental implants, pacemakers, stents, orthodontal brackets, and orthopedic implants (e.g., hip, shoulder, knee, or elbow). Not only is titanium strong, but many consider it biocompatible: it forms an oxide layer when exposed to air, and this purportedly results in reduced corrosion and superior osseointegration.

So why should you reject the standard titanium metal implant?

Titanium is NOT Biologically Inert

Titanium implants release metal ions into your mouth 24 hours a day, and this chronic exposure may trigger inflammation, allergies, and autoimmune disease in susceptible individuals. They are a precursor to disease.

Cases of intolerance to metal implants have been reported over the years, and the removal of this incompatible dental material has resulted in reduced metal sensitivity and long-term health improvement in the majority of patients.

Titanium has the potential to induce hypersensitivity as well as other immunological dysfunctions.

One study investigated 56 patients who developed severe health problems after receiving titanium-based dental implants. These medical problems included muscle, joint, and nerve pain; chronic fatigue syndrome; neurological problems; depression; and skin inflammation.

Removal of the implants resulted in a dramatic improvement in the patients’ symptoms, as well as a decrease in many patients’ sensitivity to titanium.

For example, a 54-year-old man with a titanium dental implant and four titanium screws in his vertebra was so sick that he could not work. He suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive impairment, Parkinson-like trembling, and severe depression. Six months after the removal of the implants and screws, he was able to return to work.

In another case, a 14-year-old girl developed inflammatory lesions on her face six months after being fitted with titanium orthodontal brackets.

She was also mentally and physically exhausted, and her reactivity to titanium skyrocketed. Within nine months of replacing the brackets with a metal-free material, her facial lesions had almost completely healed, she was healthy and active, and her sensitivity to titanium returned to a normal level.

Titanium Implants Can Cause Cancer

Another complication of the use of implanted titanium is its potential to induce the abnormal proliferation of cells (neoplasia), which can lead to the development of malignant tumors and cancer. Through rare, it is a well-known complication of orthopedic surgery that involves the implantation of metallic hardware.

Furthermore, researchers recently uncovered the first reported case of a sarcoma arising in association with a dental implant.

As described in the August 2008 issue of JADA (The Journal of the American Dental Association), a 38-year-old woman developed bone cancer eleven months after receiving a titanium dental implant. Luckily, she was successfully treated with chemotherapy, but the authors recommended further research into the tumor-causing potential of dental implants in light of their increasing popularity and their ability to last for longer periods of time.

Why You Want to Avoid ANY Kind of Metal in Your Mouth

Finally, the presence of any metal in your mouth sets the stage for “galvanic toxicity,” because your mouth essentially becomes a charged battery when dissimilar metals sit in a bed of saliva.

All that is needed to make a battery is two or more different metals and a liquid medium that can conduct electricity (i.e., an electrolyte). Metal implants, fillings, crowns, partials, and orthodontics provide the dissimilar metals, and the saliva in your mouth serves as the electrolyte.

An electric current called a galvanic current is then generated by the transport of the metal ions from the metal-based dental restorations into the saliva. This phenomenon is called “oral galvanism,” and it literally means that your mouth is acting like a small car battery or a miniature electrical generator. The currents can actually be measured using an ammeter!

Oral galvanism creates two major concerns.

First, the electric currents increase the rate of corrosion (or dissolution) of metal-based dental restorations. Even precious metal alloys continuously release metal ions into your mouth due to corrosion, a process that gnaws away bits of metal from the metal’s surface.

These ions react with other components of your body, leading to sensitivity, inflammation, and, ultimately, autoimmune disease. Increasing the corrosion rate, therefore, increases the chance of developing immunologic or toxic reactions to the metals.

Second, some individuals are very susceptible to these internal electrical currents. Dissimilar metals in your mouth can cause unexplained pain, nerve shocks, ulcerations, and inflammation, and many people also experience a constant metallic or salty taste, or a burning sensation in their mouth.

Moreover, there is the concern that oral galvanism directs electrical currents into brain tissue and can disrupt the natural electrical current in your brain.

New Alternatives to Titanium Implants

In recent years, high-strength ceramic implants have become attractive alternatives to titanium implants, and some current research has focused on the viability of materials such as zirconia (the dioxide of zirconium, a metal close to titanium on the periodic table).

Metal-free zirconia implants have been used in Europe and South America for years, but they have only recently become available in the U.S.

Zirconia implants are highly biocompatible to the human body and exhibit minimum ion release compared to metallic implants.

Studies have shown that the osseointegration of zirconia and titanium implants are very similar, and that zirconia implants have a comparable survival rate, thereby making them an excellent alternative to metal implants.

Moreover, zirconia ceramics have been successfully used in orthopedic surgery to manufacture ball heads for total hip replacements.

Therefore, given that titanium dental implants can induce metal sensitivity, inflammation, autoimmunity, and malignant tumors, while zirconia implants are metal-free but just as durable, why invite chronic metal exposure?

Your body would surely benefit from choosing the biocompatible, ceramic dental implant over the standard, titanium metal implant.

by: Dr. Lina Garcia, a committed holistic dentist for 25 years, has dedicated her practice to using dental materials that will support your health and not disease. In her practice, she offers only metal-free restorative materials, including zirconia implants.

Source: Dr. Mercola – Natural Health Newsletter

Posted: True Health Is True Wealth

Oral Infection and Thyroid Function Not Connected

For the entire year of 2008, I had an oral infection in my mouth from a cracked tooth. After four sets of X-rays during that time, neither the dentist nor the endodontist could see any cracks, so they did a re-work of a 10-year-old root canal with a crown. The pain did not subside, and the tooth was pulled in March. That's when the crack was revealed.

After saying all this, now my TSH and T4 are quite elevated, my T3 is low, and I am losing weight. Before the oral infection, I could not lose any weight. My endocrinologist tested my adrenal gland function, which was normal. I have asked the endocrinologist if there is a correlation between the infection that I had and the symptoms I am now experiencing with my thyroid. He said no, but is this true?

Donna D.

Your endocrinologist is correct: An oral infection will not adversely affect your thyroid function. The thyroid gland is in your neck, and dental issues will not affect it.TSH elevation usually reflects depression of thyroid function.

However , dental problems can definitely affect your overall health.  …Ask Dr. Hibberd

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth

Treating Gum Disease Helps Rheumatoid Arthritis

Here's one more reason to keep your teeth healthy.

People who suffer from gum disease and also have a severe form of rheumatoid arthritis reduced their arthritic pain, number of swollen joints, and the degree of morning stiffness when they cured their dental problems. Researchers from the Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine and University Hospitals of Cleveland reported on this new intervention for arthritis in the Journal of Periodontology.

"It was exciting to find that if we eliminated the infection and inflammation in the gums, then patients with a severe kind of active rheumatoid arthritis reported improvement on the signs and symptoms of that disease," said Dr. Nabil Bissada, chairman of the periodontics department at the dental school. "It gives us a new intervention."

This is not the first time that gum disease and rheumatoid arthritis have been linked. Another researcher in the study, Dr. Ali Askari, chairman of the rheumatology department at University Hospitals, said, "From way back, rheumatologists and other clinicians have been perplexed by the myth that gum disease may have a big role in causing systematic disease."

Historically, teeth were pulled or antibiotics given for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, which actually treated the periodontitis, he said. The patients got better.

Both inflammatory diseases share similarities in the progression of the disease over time. In both diseases, the soft and hard tissues are destroyed from inflammation caused by toxins from bacterial infection.

"I'm optimistic that someday the biologic agents that we use successfully in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis will lead to improvement of periodontitis and would be available for use and treatment of this perplexing problem," Askari said.

"Again we are seeing another link where good oral health improves the overall health of an individual," said Bissada, who added that studies have linked gum disease to premature births, heart disease, and diabetes.

Source: NewMax Health

Posted: Ask Marion – True Health Is True Wealth

Teeth Health and Blood Sugar

People with diabetes often have chronic gum disease, which may affect blood sugar levels. You should have your teeth professionally cleaned at least twice a year because you have a much higher risk of developing gum disease than people without diabetes.

Gum disease results from the formation of plaque underneath the gum line after eating. Plaque hardens into tartar, which irritates the gums and gradually erodes the underlying bone that holds the teeth in place. Thus, gum disease can lead to the need for dentures. Daily dental care can prevent gum disease from starting. Brush your teeth at least twice a day with a soft-bristle brush and floss daily. Flossing removes food from between the teeth and plaque from the gum line.

Reprinted from What to Expect When You Have Diabetes. Copyright by Good Books