This is a bit like the dental floss thing of a few years ago - someone suddenly realised there was no evidence backing the use of dental floss; cue media frenzy that dental floss is useless. No it isn't; just no-one bothered to study it. I'm sure that there isn't any high-quality evidence that 'removing your hand from a hot stove decreases burn injuries.' More evidence is a good thing, and is needed in many cases, but and there is also a heap of questionable medical treatment out there, perpetuated by the status quo.
That is not an accurate summation of the evidence. 11 publications were used to analyze the efficacy of dental floss, a some dozens more for other inter-dental cleaning methods.
Characterizing this as 'absence of evidence' is incorrect; the specific issue has been investigated by several independent investigators and consistently fails to find evidence of efficacy. Even with much higher sampling and statistical power, if any effect was observed, it would likely be well below anything that could justify flossing as a health recommendation, especially over IDBs.
