Most Americans lie to their dentists, here's why
That's according to a new survey conducted by Talker Research and commissioned by Aspen Dental, which asked 2,000 American adults about their dental hygiene, as reported by SWNS.
The study spoke to the mixed emotions Americans experience when it comes to dental visits, including fear, anxiety and discomfort, which can often lead to delayed care.
In the poll, 60% of respondents confessed to wanting to impress their dentist during office visits, leading 57% of them to fib about their dental hygiene.
And yet, 48% of people said they believed their dentists could see right through their lies, according to SWNS.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said they felt guilty about their dishonesty. Millennials and Gen Xers felt the least guilty about lying compared to older Americans.
A third of those who have lied to the dentist (33%) simply didn't want their dentist to think less of them, while a fifth (19%) said they don't mean to be dishonest, but that "panic lies" accidentally slip out, especially among Gen Zers (27%), per SWNS.
Anxiety is the biggest obstacle keeping Americans from visiting the dentist (24%), affecting 29% of women and 17% of men, the survey found.
Twenty-two percent said the actual dental work put them off, with baby boomers feeling the most uncomfortable in that regard. And 13% have avoided the dentist's office because they were embarrassed about their poor dental hygiene.
The survey also revealed that nearly a quarter of Americans (22%) had discomfort or soreness in their mouths at least once per week, with millennials experiencing more discomfort than other generations (34%).
These factors may contribute to the 45% of respondents who have not visited a dentist in the last year and the nearly one in five Americans (19%) who haven't seen the inside of a dentist's office in five years.
Nearly one in five people haven't seen the inside of a dentist's office in five years.
"Maintaining adequate oral health can be overwhelming," Dr. Taylor Sutton, multi-practice owner and practicing dentist at Aspen Dental in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told SWNS.
"That's why it's so important to have a dentist you feel comfortable connecting with, who shows empathy and leaves all judgment at the door."
Dr. Tracy Redden, multi-practice owner and practicing dentist at Aspen Dental in Boston, echoed the importance of proper oral care.
"Neglecting oral hygiene — whatever your reason — can lead to serious health issues," she told SWNS.
"Your mouth is the gateway to your body that can affect your overall health. Maintaining oral health is not a choice, but a necessity for our overall well-being."
When leaving the dentist's office determined to maintain better dental health, respondents said their good hygiene habits last only about eight days before they slip back into bad habits.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
Over half of the survey respondents confessed they don't regularly floss, and nearly seven in 10 said they brush their teeth for less than two minutes per session.
"You may not need to use dental floss as frequently as toothpaste, but it should still be a part of your daily dental cleaning," Dr. Arash Ravanbakhsh of Inglewood Family Dental in Alberta, Canada, said in an email to Fox News Digital.
"While dentists recommend brushing your teeth twice a day, this is not the only cleaning method you should be using daily. Mouthwash and flossing also play a huge role in keeping your oral hygiene in top condition," Ravanbakhsh added.
One mistake patients make when cleaning at home is using too much pressure when brushing, according to the doctor.
"You may not need to use dental floss as frequently as toothpaste, but it should still be a part of your daily dental cleaning."
"Just because you brush your teeth harder does not mean you are giving them a more thorough clean," he wrote. "In fact, this could damage your teeth and gums."
To safely and properly clean your teeth, Ravanbakhsh recommends using a manual brush with soft bristles or an electric toothbrush.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
43 minutes ago
Republican megabill will mean higher health costs for many Americans
The tax and spending legislation the House voted to send to President Donald Trump's desk on Thursday, enacting much of his domestic agenda, cuts federal health spending by about $1 trillion over a decade in ways that will jeopardize the physical and financial health of tens of millions of Americans. The bill, passed in both the House and the Senate without a single Democratic vote, is expected to reverse many of the health coverage gains of the Biden and Obama administrations. Their policies made it easier for millions of people to access health care and reduced the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows, though Republicans say the trade-off was far higher costs borne by taxpayers and increased fraud. Under the legislation Trump's expected to sign on Friday, Independence Day, reductions in federal support for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplaces will cause nearly 12 million more people to be without insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That in turn is expected to undermine the finances of hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers — which will have to absorb more of the cost of treating uninsured people. Some may reduce services and employees or close altogether. Here are five ways the GOP's plans may affect health care access. Need Medicaid? Then get a job The deepest cuts to health care spending come from a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which is expected to end coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards. In 40 states and Washington, D.C., all of which have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, some Medicaid enrollees will have to regularly file paperwork proving that they are working, volunteering, or attending school at least 80 hours a month, or that they qualify for an exemption, such as caring for a young child. The new requirement will start as early as January 2027. The bill's requirement doesn't apply to people in the 10 largely GOP-led states that have not expanded Medicaid to nondisabled adults. Health researchers say the policy will have little impact on employment. Most working-age Medicaid enrollees who don't receive disability benefits already work or are looking for work, or are unable to do so because they have a disability, attend school, or care for a family member, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. State experiments with work requirements have been plagued with administrative issues, such as eligible enrollees losing coverage over paperwork problems, and budget overruns. Georgia's work requirement, which officially launched in July 2023, has cost more than $90 million, with only $26 million of that spent on health benefits, according to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization. "The hidden costs are astronomical," said Chima Ndumele, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health. Belt-tightening that targets states could translate into fewer health services, medical professionals and even hospitals, especially in rural communities. The GOP's plan curtails a practice, known as provider taxes, that nearly every state has used for decades to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers and private managed-care companies. States often use the federal money generated through taxes to pay the institutions more than Medicaid would otherwise pay. Medicaid generally pays lower fees for care than Medicare, the program for people over 65 and some with disabilities, and private insurance. But thanks to provider taxes, some hospitals are paid more under Medicaid than Medicare, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research nonprofit. Hospitals and nursing homes say they use these extra Medicaid dollars to expand or add new services and improve care for all patients. Rural hospitals typically operate on thin profit margins and rely on payments from Medicaid taxes to sustain them. Researchers from the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research who examined the original House version of the bill concluded it would push more than 300 rural hospitals — many of them in Kentucky, Louisiana, California, and Oklahoma — toward service reductions or closure. Republicans in the Senate tacked a $50 billion fund onto the legislation to cushion the blow to rural hospitals. The money will be distributed starting in 2027 and continuing for five years. Harder to get and keep ACA coverage For those with Obamacare plans, the new legislation will make it harder to enroll and to retain their coverage. Affordable Care Act marketplace policyholders will be required to update their income, immigration status and other information each year, rather than be allowed to automatically reenroll — something more than 10 million people did this year. They'll also have less time to enroll; the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month. People applying for coverage outside that period — for instance because they lose a job or other insurance or need to add a newborn or spouse to an existing policy — will have to wait for all their documents to be processed before receiving government subsidies to help pay their monthly premiums. Currently, they get up to 90 days of premium help during the application process, which can take weeks. Republican lawmakers and some conservative policy think tanks, including the Paragon Health Institute, said the changes are needed to reduce fraudulent enrollments, while opponents say they represent Trump's best effort to undo Obamacare. The legislation also does not call for an extension of more generous premium subsidies put in place during the covid pandemic. If Congress doesn't act, those enhanced subsidies will expire at year's end, resulting in premiums rising by an average of 75% next year, according to KFF. On Medicaid? Pay more to see doctors Many Medicaid enrollees can expect to pay more out-of-pocket for appointments. Trump's legislation requires states that have expanded Medicaid to charge enrollees up to $35 for some services if their incomes are between the federal poverty level (this year, $15,650 for an individual) and 138% of that amount ($21,597). Medicaid enrollees often don't pay anything when seeking medical services because studies have shown charging even small copayments prompts low-income people to forgo needed care. In recent years, some states have added charges under $10 for certain services. The policy won't apply to people seeking primary care, mental health care or substance abuse treatment. The bill allows states to enact even higher cost sharing for enrollees who seek emergency room care for nonemergencies. But if Medicaid patients fail to pay, hospitals and other providers could be left to foot the bill. Cuts for lawfully present immigrants The GOP plan could cause at least hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are lawfully present — including asylum-seekers, victims of trafficking and refugees — to lose their ACA marketplace coverage by cutting off the subsidies that make premiums affordable. The restriction won't apply to green-card holders. Because the immigrants who will lose subsidies under the legislation tend to be younger than the overall U.S. population, their exit would leave an older, sicker, and costlier population of marketplace enrollees, further pushing up marketplace premiums, according to marketplace directors in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts and health analysts. Taking health care access away from immigrants living in the country legally "will do irreparable harm to individuals we have promised to protect and impose unnecessary costs on local systems already under strain," John Slocum, executive director of Refugee Council USA, an advocacy group, said in a statement. The bill reflects the Trump administration's restrictive approach to immigration. But because it ran afoul of Senate rules, the legislation doesn't include a proposal that would have reduced federal Medicaid payments to states such as California that use their own money to cover immigrants without legal status.
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
GOP megabill extends and expands compensation for nuclear weapons radiation victims
The Republican megabill passed by Congress on Thursday contains an extension and expansion of a program to compensate Americans who developed cancer from radiation exposure linked to the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The megabill revives a compensation program for victims who were exposed to this radiation and which lapsed last year. It also expands it to new areas in states including Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho and Missouri and ups compensation to $100,000 from either $50,000 or $75,000, depending on the disease. Mary Dickson, an activist who grew up in Salt Lake City and believes her thyroid cancer came from living downwind of nuclear weapons testing in Nevada, told The Hill she expects to be eligible for compensation for the first time. The government detonated 928 test bombs from 1951 to 1992 at the Nevada site. 'The winds blew the fallout across the country. Utah was blanketed. So we were exposed repeatedly to fallout,' Dickson said. She said she was 'crying' when the legislation passed the House, calling it 'an acknowledgement that our government did this to us.' At the same time, Dickson said, 'it's not going to bring back all the loved ones who have died' including her sister, who died of lupus, an autoimmune disease. The inclusion marks a victory for lawmakers including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) who has pushed for the program's expansion. 'To all the radiation survivors and nuclear veterans across the country: WE DID IT,' Hawley said in a post on X. Hawley was one of the bill's key Senate holdouts, at first saying its cuts to Medicaid went too far while its cuts to renewable energy subsidies did not go far enough. The radiation program he fought for, known as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, had widespread Democratic support but was more controversial among Republicans, some of whom expressed concerns about the program's cost. Kyle Ann Sebastian, a spokesperson for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the expansion was 'an incredibly important step' but was a compromise that left out parts of the country including Guam, Montana and Colorado.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Here's how to get GLP-1 drugs covered by employer health insurance
While the new anti-obesity medications known as GLP-1s are only one tool to combat obesity and cardiometabolic disease, they have changed the medical landscape and are clinically important in treating these diseases. Yet most Americans who have health insurance cannot get coverage for them. For some, the only option has been to resort to compounded drugs for which the Food and Drug Administration has not assured the safety, and for which the main pharmaceutical ingredient is made in Chinese chemical factories without the quality standards of FDA-approved branded drugs. Even that inferior option is going away, as the FDA has declared that the name-brand drugs are no longer in short supply and so the off-brand drugs are no longer allowed. President Trump recently called out 'the fat shot' when he told pharmaceutical companies to offer the United States the same pricing they offer other peer nations. He related a story of a friend in London who told him the price of GLP-1s there is about one-tenth of what it would cost in the U.S. The average listed price in the U.S. is more than $1,000 a month. In England, it is about $150. There is not yet legislative authority to require pharmaceutical companies to sell prescription drugs in the United States at lower prices, but there is a straightforward way that these medications can become affordable to many in the United States. Most employee health insurance coverage is through employer-sponsored plans, in which the budget is based on premiums contributed by both the employer and employee. Few plans provide coverage for any weight loss treatment, but if they did, it would have to fit in that budget — which would probably necessitate raising premiums. Toxic fat is the cause of many cardiometabolic conditions, and GLP-1 drugs can help people reclaim their health. Improving access and affordability could be transformative for public health, given that about 88% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy. Increasingly, employees are telling their employers that they want access to these medications, and many employers would like to offer plans that cover them. The brand-name manufacturers themselves provide a clue to how this could be possible. They offer their drugs directly to patients for around $500 a month. The sticking points? People whose employee-sponsored health insurance would cover even part of the cost of weight loss drugs are not eligible for that reduced price. Also, at $500 a month, even the discounted direct-to-consumer price still makes the drugs unaffordable to many. Drug pricing in the United States is not transparent, and many entities get a share of the dollars that the health plans have budgeted. Simplifying the system with the GLP-1 drugs could make these drugs more accessible. Today, a drug bought from the drug company at $1,000 can include around a $300 rebate negotiated by a pharmacy benefit manager (working on behalf of the employer-sponsored health plan) and is often accompanied by a $150 manufacturer's discount coupon. The resulting price is similar to the around $500 price that drug companies offer directly to patients who don't have coverage for these drugs. If we eliminate the rebates and coupons, so that manufacturers only charge employer-sponsored health plans the same $500 price they charge consumers directly, and then allow employers to contribute part of the cost (say $300 a month), we can get the out-of-pocket costs for employees close to the price at which these drugs are sold in other countries. It would be a rebate-free, coupon-free system with reasonable cost sharing by the employer. The only reason that system of rebates even came to exist was to create enticements so certain manufacturers could persuade pharmacy benefit managers and employee-sponsored health plans to favor their drug over others'. But in this case, where only two main drugs exist and both have publicly available clinical trial data that physicians can use to make informed prescribing decisions, rebates aren't needed. In reality, recent agreements between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers have prioritized financial interests over clinical appropriateness, determining drug preference based on what benefits the companies, not what's best for the patient. Getting the price of the drugs to an affordable level would significantly remove one of the most despised aspects of the healthcare system — prior approval authorization. Doctors' offices are expending resources to get around barriers erected to limit the use of healthcare plan dollars on expensive medications for those the insurance plan and its managers determine do not need the drug, even when the doctors believe they do. GLP-1s are highly effective for most people, but they also have some serious risks. We should leave it to doctors to make shared decisions with their patients about whether the risks outweigh the benefits. To further create incentives for the pharmaceutical companies to reduce their prices and for employers to share in the cost of these drugs, the Trump administration should agree, as the Biden administration did, to cover them under Medicare. (Trump reversed that effort this year, barring Medicare and Medicaid from using them to treat the disease of obesity.) This plan to simplify payments and expand access would not make all drugs affordable in the United States, but increasing accessibility to GLP-1s can get us on the road to eliminating the significant problem of cardiometabolic disease and improving our health. David A. Kessler, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, is the author of 'Diet, Drugs, and Dopamine: The New Science of Achieving a Healthy Weight.'
