Comparison between the effectiveness of Dental tape, Flosser®, and Superfloss® in controlling interproximal biofilm: A randomized and clinical study

Abstract

Objectives: The most effective way to control gingivitis and periodontitis is biofilm mechanical removal. The aim of this randomized and clinical study was to compare the efficacy of three different methods of controlling interproximal biofilm: Dental tape, Dental floss holder (Flosser®), and Superfloss®. Materials and Methods: This study consisted of 15 volunteers of both genders, with ages between 18 and 50 years who presented at Dental School São Leopoldo Mandic, having sufficient motor skills for the oral hygiene with plaque index greater than 20%. All participants received instructions to brush using Bass technique as well the correct way to practice interproximal cleaning. The bleeding index (BI) using the periodontal millimeter probe and the plaque index (PI) through disclosing agents were taken in the five phases of the study (baseline, 15,30,45 and 60 days). The 15 volunteers were randomly divided in three Groups with three specific apparatus (A-Dental tape, B-Flosser®, and C-Superfloss®). At the 15 subsequent days, Groups A, B, and C, through a new randomized drawing, received an original tool. There was a 15-day Washout period between the second and the third method, in which the volunteer could choose to use the cleaning apparatus they preferred among the two previously used. Results: The variance analyses for randomized blocks indicated a statistically significant difference in plaque index (P < 0.001) and bleeding index (P = 0.011), with Flosser®, compared to others. During the washout period, most volunteers opted for Flosser®, reporting great ease and practicality. Conclusion: Despite the bleeding and PI reduction with the different devices, the dental floss holder (Flosser®) is a viable alternatives to manual flossing, still being preferred by volunteers.