World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of the Plaque Removal Ability of Two Different Dental Floss Devices: A Comparative Study

Ranjan Rashmi Behera, Mohammad Jalaluddin, Sowmya Halasabalu Kalgeri, Shilpa Mailankote, Narendra Varma Penumatsa, Dharati Patel

Keywords : Dental floss, Plaque, Proximal surfaces, Water flosser

Citation Information : Behera RR, Jalaluddin M, Kalgeri SH, Mailankote S, Penumatsa NV, Patel D. Assessment of the Plaque Removal Ability of Two Different Dental Floss Devices: A Comparative Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (10):860-863.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2313

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-11-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: The purpose of the present study was to compare the plaque removal ability of two different dental floss devices. Materials and methods: A total of 30 participants were included in the current in vivo split-mouth investigation. The chosen group of individuals ranged in age from 18 to 40 years. All of the participants were told to brush using a modified bass method. All participants (split-mouth) were divided into two groups as follows: group I—conventional dental floss and group II—water flossers. Each side's plaque index was calculated, and the results were contrasted with the baseline score. The type of floss used on either side of the mouth was blinded by the examiner who recorded the plaque index before and after the trial. A canine and a premolar, respectively, were chosen for analysis. The Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) consists of nine sections that must be scored. Then, sections were joined to produce data for the proximal and marginal regions. Results: In the conventional dental floss group, on the canine region, before the intervention, the plaque score was 1.30 ± 0.01 and after the intervention was 0.42 ± 0.10. On premolar region, before intervention the plaque score was 1.22 ± 0.03 and after intervention was 0.36 ± 0.03. In the water flosser group, on the canine region, before intervention the plaque score was 1.28 ± 0.04 and after intervention was 0.26 ± 0.13. On the premolar region, before intervention the plaque score was 1.32 ± 0.01 and after intervention was 0.24 ± 0.10. Conclusion: The current study concluded that a water flosser was just as effective as conventional dental floss at removing interdental plaque after a single use. Clinical significance: It is generally recognized that dental plaque plays a role in the development of many dental disorders. In order to remove plaque and avoid gingivitis and periodontitis in addition to regular brushing, regular cleaning is required, especially in the interdental spaces. The technique of choice for these areas is ordinarily flossing.

PDF Share
  1. Da Silva, Henriques PSG. Comparison between the effectiveness of dental tape, Flosser®, and Superfloss® in controlling interproximal biofilm: a randomized and clinical study. J Global Oral Health 2023;6(1):3–7. DOI: 10.25259/JGOH_15_2022
  2. Poli PP, Beretta M, Grossi GB, et al. Risk indicators related to peri-implant disease: an observational retrospective cohort study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2016;46(4):266–276. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2016.46.4.266
  3. Ng E, Lim LP. An overview of different interdental cleaning aids and their effectiveness. Dent J (Basel) 2019;7(2):56. DOI: 10.3390/dj7020056
  4. Carr MP, Rice GL, Horton JE. Evaluation of floss types for interproximal plaque removal. Am J Dent 2000;13(4):212–214. PMID: 11763934.
  5. Lyle, DM. Relevance of the water flosser: 50 years of data. Compend Cont Educ Dent 2012;33(4):278–280. PMID: 22536661.
  6. Rustogi KN, Curtis JP, Volpe AR, et al. Refinement of the modified navy plaque index to increase plaque scoring efficiency in gumline and interproximal tooth areas. J Clin Dent 1992;3(Suppl C):C9–C12 PMID: 1306676.
  7. Ximénez-Fyvie LA, Haffajee AD, Som S, et al. The effect of repeated professional supragingival plaque removal on the composition of the supra- and subgingival microbiota. J Clin Periodontol 2000;27(9):637–647. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027009637.x
  8. Kiran SDP, Ghiya K, Makwani D, et al. Comparison of plaque removal efficacy of a novel flossing agent with the conventional floss: a clinical study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(6):474–478. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1560
  9. Carter HG, Banes GP, Radentz WH. The effects of using various types of dental floss on gingival sulcular bleeding. Va Dent J 1975;52(1):18–32. PMID: 1062068.
  10. Bowen DM. Flossing or alternative interdental aids? Am Dent Hygienists’ Assoc 2012;86(2):58–62. PMID: 22584442.
  11. Goyal CR, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, et al. The addition of a water flosser to power tooth brushing: effect on bleeding, gingivitis, and plaque. J Clin Dent 2012;23(2):57–63. PMID: 22779218.
  12. Rosema NA, Hennequin-Hoenderdos NL, Berchier CE, et al. The effect of different interdental cleaning devices on gingival bleeding. J Int Acad Periodontol 2011;13(1):2–10. PMID: 21387981.
  13. Barnes CM, Russell CM, Reinhardt RA, et al. Comparison of irrigation to floss as an adjunct to tooth brushing: effect on bleeding, gingivitis, and supragingival plaque. J Clin Dent 2005;16(3):71–77. PMID: 16305005.
  14. Worthington HV, MacDonald L, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;4(4):CD012018. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012018.pub2
  15. Sharma N C, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, et al. Comparison of two power interdental cleaning devices on the reduction of gingivitis. J Clin Dent 2012;23(1):22–26. PMID: 22435321.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.