Power Flossers

Lang et al. investigated preventive behaviors and found that approximately one-third of his sample population—319 adults from in and around the Detroit tri-county area—flossed daily. When observed however, only 22% of the subjects demonstrated acceptable flossing behavior.31 In this case, the results do seem to concur with the observation that people do not like to floss. The reasons vary but difficulty in manipulating the floss is often vocalized. In response to this, many different devices have been developed to make the process easier. Recently, several automated flossing devices have become available. Currently available power flossing devices are listed in Table III (PDF file) while the main outcomes from power flossing studies are in Table IV (PDF file).

Gordon et al., Cronin et al., and Isaacs et al. compared a rotating filament interdental cleaner to manual flossing in the ability to remove plaque and reduce gingivitis. The sample population included subjects with gingivitis who flossed less than once a week. In each study, the power unit was demonstrated to be as effective as floss in this demographic.32-34 Recently, Schmage et al. compared this rotating filament interdental cleaner to several different manual interproximal cleaning devices by having a dentist utilize the products on the clients once daily for a five day period. Results showed that the manual products removed a significantly greater amount of plaque than the powered unit.

Pucher et al. evaluated a high speed vibrating flosser, and found it to be equivalent to manual flossing in both dental students and clients in supportive periodontal therapy.36 Likewise, Anderson et al. and Shibly et al. studied an automated filament flossing device on plaque accumulation and gingival health and found it equivalent to manual flossing.37,38