Jump to content

Do dogs and cats....


frmrMiamiMarlins04
 Share

Recommended Posts


I found something

 

Is a Dog's Mouth Cleaner Than a Human's?

 

I have a problem with people who say "a dog's mouth is cleaner than a human's." I have asked for facts from these people to back up their statements but no one has been able to provide them to me.

 

I believe that dogs and humans have similar enzymes for breaking down food, and I know that my dog licks herself in places I don't, and she always has "doggie breath."

 

I don't think it's possible for a dog's mouth to be cleaner, unless dogs have some super-secret enzyme that we don't.

 

 

Dear Reader:

 

The way I heard it when I was a kid was that a dog's mouth is actually sterile. I can even recall someone in my neighborhood attempting to "prove" this to anybody who'd sit still for it by letting his dog lick the inside of his mouth ? not a particularly conclusive demonstration, but memorable just the same.

 

I believed what I was told at the time in spite of contradictory evidence at hand, namely that people sometimes become quite ill and even die from dog bites. If a dog's mouth is sterile, how could it transmit rabies, tetanus, pasteurella or any of the other types of infection associated with dog bites?

 

But I digress. The precise question was: Is a dog's mouth cleaner than a human's? The answer to that is no, too, and basically for the reasons you've already cited. As we all know, dogs aren't especially fussy about where they put their tongues or what goes into their mouths.

 

"A dog's mouth contains a lot of bacteria," says Dr. Gary "Ask the Vet" Clemons. "Remember, a dog's tongue is not only his wash cloth but also his toilet paper."

 

Not only accurate, but delicately put!

 

So where did the notion come from that a dog's mouth is cleaner than a human's? From doctors, evidently. It has long been noted in the medical literature that human bites are more likely to become infected than those of other mammals, including dogs. The statistics were published in journals and repeated by medical professionals, and folk wisdom took off from there.

 

Lately, however, the accuracy of the statistics themselves has come under attack. A 1988 review published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine states:

 

Recent study of human bites has shown that the early literature depicting all human bites as having an extraordinarily high infection and complication rate was biased by its emphasis on human bites of the hand that presented late with infection already present. These bites, the so-called closed-fist injuries (CFI), do indeed have a poor prognosis, but it may be as much due to their location and initial neglect as to the source of the injury. Human bites elsewhere do not seem to have any higher risk than animal bites, which have an infection rate of about 10%. [Abstract]

And a 1995 review in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology concurs:

 

Human bite wounds have long had a bad reputation for severe infection and frequent complication. However, recent data demonstrate that human bites occurring anywhere other than the hand present no more of a risk for infection than any other type of mammalian bite. [Abstract]

So, my impression, after a quick layman's survey of the literature, is that although the issue remains controversial among scientists, the revisionists have a point. Until recently, the statistics on human bite wounds did not differentiate between what we would ordinarily consider a "bite" and so-called "closed-fist injuries" ? the type of hand-wound suffered by one person who slugs another person in the mouth.

 

By their very nature, such wounds are deeper and more serious than bites passively sustained and thus more likely to result in complications. Their inclusion in general bite-wound statistics, some researchers now argue, skewed past pathological comparisons of human bites with animal bites.

 

If you don't mind my falling back on a gut feeling, I'll conclude by reiterating that I have personally witnessed a human being allowing a dog to lick the inside of his mouth, and it was... unpleasant to behold. Say what you will about the relative cleanliness of the canine mouth vs. the human, I'd rather be French-kissed by a human being than a dog any day.

 

Certain human beings, that is. I don't want to give the impression I'm easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...