[aimee]

Hi Spycar,

It appears that you have made a classic mistake. No one disputes and the studies support that cats and dogs given lots of chewing opportunities via a “natural” diet have less calculus. So yes, anyone can see that the crowns are cleaner, but it is what is unseen that equates to oral health. Periodontal disease, unless very advanced, isn’t seen. It takes probing and radiographs to “see” the attachment loss or bone loss.

You have very strong opinions but you haven’t provided any data. Where is the data that PMR dogs have significantly different degrees of periodontal disease then commercial fed dogs? To “see” periodontal disease the dogs need to be anesthetized and each tooth accessed on all sides for attachment loss or bone loss. To date to my knowledge this hasn’t been done.

But independent of tooth damage and wear we do have multiple studies that all conclude the same thing. Dog and cats eating natural diets have significant amount of periodontal disease. In the feral cat study the prevalence was the same. In the African wild dog study only bone change could be evaluated so the prevalence of periodontal disease would be under reported as the earlier soft tissue changes couldn’t be evaluated.

Furthermore if carbohydrate negatively impacted dental health then we’d have expected to see that reflected in the data. Yet that is not what was seen.

Starting with a conclusion and ignoring data contrary to your conclusion while clinging to your unsupported beliefs is not what science is. In science one make reasonable conclusions based on available data. In this case the reasonable conclusion is that a naturel diet doesn’t prevent or protect against periodontal disease. As further data becomes available that conclusion may or may not change.