Today I found out dog mouths are not cleaner than human mouths.
If this were the case, I’m pretty sure a dog’s mouth would be some sort of medical miracle, considering: they rarely if ever have their teeth brushed or mouths cleaned; they literally put their mouth on everything; and they use their tongue as toilet paper for not only themselves, but also any other dogs they encounter. Mouths are a great environment for bacteria to thrive; so barring some innate very strong anti-bacterial agent in their saliva, this myth just wasn’t going to be true. There are also numerous types of diseases associated with dog bites, including pasteurella, tetanus, rabies, klebsiella, proteus, E. coli, eikenella, etc, which point to the fact that a dog’s mouth couldn’t be sterile, as people often claim.
Don’t just take my word for it though. According to a study on the relative amount of microbes in a human’s mouth vs. a dog’s mouth, dog’s mouths had significantly more bacterial colonies than a human’s mouth. In this study, they measured the number of bacterial colonies per square centimeter in a dog’s mouth vs. a human’s mouth. The samples were taken after both had eaten and without the humans being allowed to brush their teeth before the sampling. The results were scaled down to a 1-4 scale where 1 is the cleanest, with relatively few bacterial colonies (“relative” being the operative word as both human and dog’s mouths are teaming with microbes), and 4 being the grossest, meaning relatively high amounts of different bacterial colonies. According to the study, 10% of the dogs scored a 1 (relatively clean); 30% scored a 3; and the remaining 60% scored a 4 (grossest). With the humans, 70% scored a 1; 20% scored a 2; and 10% scored a 3.
This small study backs up the intuitive notion that if you are someone who goes around eating garbage, poop, and pretty much putting anything and everything you find in your mouth, all the while typically never having your mouth cleaned in any way, then your mouth is going to have quite a lot more types of bacteria in it than someone who brushes their teeth regularly and doesn’t go around eating poop and other such microbial gold mines.
So where did this myth come from? It’s likely that it started from people observing that dogs clean their wounds with their mouths and it is scientifically proven to have less chance of getting infected than if they didn’t lick it. The problem with this is that any wound that is cleaned regularly, by licking or simply running water over it frequently, will give you much less chance of infection than otherwise. There is no strong anti-bacterial agent working here, it is simply a case of cleaning off dead tissue and the like.
Another theory of this myth’s origin is the medical myth that if you are bitten by a human, you’ll have a much greater chance of having that bite become infected than if you are bitten by a dog. This “fact” has been spread around in antiquated medical journals for ages, but has recently been shown to be incorrect. As stated in the 1988 Annals of Emergency Medicine:
A more recent 1995 study done by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, observed the same thing:
Expand for References
 |
 |
 |
 |
Just came across this article as it sounded interesting. The author should check the accuracy of some of the information cited about ” numerous types of diseases associated with dog bites…”, as it is incorrect and lacks clarity.
Good website though.
@mo12: Incorrect how? Dog’s bites are associated with spreading rabies, tetanus, and pasteurella, just to name a few. I didn’t really see the point of creating a list in the context of this article.
I’m glad you like my site. You’ll find as you read more articles that you’ll be hard pressed to find the same topics covered with the level of detail and accuracy as on this site (a big reason why I started the site, as most fact sites are ripe with misinformation). However, I forgo certain details that I don’t think readers would find particularly interesting (like writing a long list of diseases spread by dog bites).
good info. im doing a project in school for microbiology on dog vs human flora. can you tell me what study you got “According to a study on the relative amount of microbes in a human’s mouth vs. a dog’s mouth” from so I can learn more for my project?
This doesn’t jibe with the test that the Mythbusters did in Season 3. Their conclusion was that the “myth” is plausible:
“The sample collected from Adam’s mouth had much more bacterial growth than the sample collected from Lulu the dog. Jamie suggested, however, that the bacteria from the dog may be more potent.”
Your conclusion is also contradicted by another independent test by HookedOnScience.org: http://youtu.be/dDt-hjwgVjE.
I like the website, but speculation such as this is irresponsible when empirical results are so readily available.
@David: Mythbusters should never, ever be used as valid scientific evidence for or against something. It’s an entertainment show and they sacrifice scientific integrity for enhancing entertainment value on every single episode, which they should if they want to keep ratings up while being able to spit out regular episodes. In this particular instance, a sample size of 1 is not sufficient to say anything about the dog’s mouth vs. a human’s mouth. In the HookedOnScience video, they compared two humans with two dogs. Again, this isn’t enough. If you don’t trust the study we talked about in the article above, do a little Googling around for something like “Abstract Dog’s mouth microbes vs. humans” or the like and you’ll come up with numerous actual scientifically done papers on the subject, such as this one or, in terms of the “potency” of microbes in our respective mouths you referenced Jamie speaking of this one. Rest assured, everything you see on this site is extremely well researched (it’s what we do for a living and if you check out author bio’s, you’ll see you’d be hard pressed to find a similar genre’d site so well credentialed). If we speculate on something in an article, we say we’re speculating. We won’t present it as fact.