---

TL;DR: Should You Use Glide Floss?

Glide floss (PTFE-based) helps reduce bleeding and gum inflammation, especially when used with brushing. But in lab tests, it removes less plaque than textured or expanding flosses (Yankell et al., 2019). It’s super smooth, which makes it easy to use, but that same slickness means it might slide over plaque instead of grabbing it.

 Best for:

• Tight contacts
• Patients who hate flossing but will actually use Glide
• People who need comfort and ease

Not ideal for:

• Gum recession or open spaces (interdental brushes work better)
• Implants or bridges (risk of trapping fibers)
• Patients exploring PFAS-free alternatives: some PTFE-based flosses, including Glide, have been flagged in environmental health studies for containing fluorinated compounds (Boronow et al., 2019). No health risks from floss use have been proven, but patients may want to be informed.

Bottom line: Glide is better than not flossing, but not always the best option. If your patient will use something else more effectively (like water flossers or brushes), let them. The best interdental cleaner is the one they'll actually use, with the right technique.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational and educational purposes only. It reflects a review of current peer-reviewed literature and general clinical insights, but does not constitute medical or dental advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations.Dental professionals should always consult the American Dental Association (ADA), state dental board regulations, and current clinical guidelines before making product recommendations or treatment decisions. Information in this post should not be used as the sole basis for patient care or substituted for your own professional judgment.Dr. Bonifatto is not responsible for any outcomes related to how this information is interpreted or applied.

Introduction

Glide Floss (PTFE) – What Is It? Oral-B Glide is a popular dental floss made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, a Teflon-like polymer) known for its ultra-smooth texture and shred-resistant design[1][2]. Many patients prefer PTFE floss for its ease of sliding between tight teeth and comfort during use[3]. However, clinicians question whether this “glide” convenience comes at the cost of plaque-removal effectiveness or safety. This report provides an evidence-based review of Glide floss’s efficacy in removing interdental plaque and improving gingival health, compared to other floss types and interdental cleaning methods. We also address safety concerns (notably PFAS chemicals in PTFE floss) and translate findings into practical guidance for dental professionals and patients.

Why Floss at All? Mechanical cleaning between teeth is critical because toothbrushes alone miss up to ~40% of plaque on interdental surfaces[4]. Leftover plaque between teeth leads to tartar, gingivitis, cavities, and periodontal disease[5][6]. Floss (or other interdental cleaners) is therefore recommended to remove plaque where brushing can’t reach[7]. Despite this common advice, skepticism arose after reviews found surprisingly weak evidence for flossing’s benefits in the general population[8]. Here, we clarify what high-quality studies and recent reviews show regarding flossing efficacy, focusing especially onOral-B Glide (PTFE) floss versus alternatives. We’ll examine: Does Glide floss plus brushing reduce plaque and gingival inflammation better than brushing alone? How does Glide compare to nylon floss, “expanding” floss, floss picks, interdental brushes, and water flossers? What about long-term outcomes like cavities or periodontitis? Finally, how should clinicians counsel patients on flossing technique, product selection, and potential risks like PTFE/PFAS exposure?

Flossing vs Brushing Alone: Evidence Update

Brushing + Flossing vs Brushing Only: Strong consensus holds that cleaning between teeth (with floss or another device) improves gum health compared to toothbrushing alone[9]. Clinical trials consistently show that adding floss reduces gum inflammation and bleeding in the short to medium term, even if visible plaque scores don’t always drop dramatically[10][11]. A 2019 Cochrane systematic review (35 studies, ~3900 participants) concluded that using floss in addition to brushing “may reduce gingivitis” (gum inflammation/bleeding) at 1–6 month follow-ups[9]. However, the effect on plaque indices was unclear – some trials showed slight plaque reduction with floss, others no significant difference[10]. This indicates flossing helps gums primarily by disrupting plaque enough to reduce inflammation, even if total plaque mass reduction is small.

Clinical Significance and Limitations: Notably, the measured improvements from flossing were statistically significant but modest in magnitude[12]. For example, a Cochrane 2011 review found a small reduction in gingivitis scores when floss was added to brushing (in studies up to 6 months)[13]. An earlier meta-analysis by Berchier et al. (2008) actually found no significant plaque or gingivitis improvement from routine self-flossing[14], leading those authors to caution that telling everyone to floss “is not supported by scientific evidence” unless the individual can floss effectively[15]. Part of the discrepancy comes from study quality – many floss trials have short durations (1–3 months), small sample sizes, and inconsistent technique or compliance[12][16]. Indeed, Cochrane rated the overall evidence as “low to very low certainty”[17][18]. Many participants started with minimal gum inflammation, making it hard to show large improvements[17]. No studies to date conclusively prove that flossing prevents interdental caries or advanced periodontitis in the long run[19][20] – those outcomes would require years-long trials that haven’t been done. Nonetheless, no evidence suggests flossing is harmful, and given floss’s plausible benefit (removing plaque where brushing misses), virtually all experts and organizations still advise daily interdental cleaning as part of oral hygiene[21][22]. In summary, flossing (any type) plus brushing is better for gum health than brushing alone, but patients should understand the benefit, while real, is generally moderate and dependent on proper technique and regular use. This context is important when evaluating whether any particular floss (like Glide) is “better” or “worse” than others.

Glide (PTFE) Floss vs Traditional Floss: Efficacy and User Preference

How PTFE Floss Differs: Glide’s PTFE material gives it a distinct feel compared to traditional nylon or silk flosses. Glide is a monofilament tape that is extremely smooth (low surface roughness) and slides easily, whereas multifilament nylon/silk floss has a textured, fibrous character[23][24]. These material differences affect both user experience and mechanical performance. A recent laboratory study measured mechanical properties of four floss types (PTFE like Glide, nylon, silk, and UHMW polyethylene) and surveyed 16 people’s preferences. Results: PTFE floss had by far the lowest surface roughness and was rated the most preferred overall by users, while traditional nylon floss was least preferred[3]. Users appreciated PTFE floss’s comfort and ease of sliding, which aligns with the common anecdotal popularity of Glide floss.

Plaque Removal Ability – Lab Tests: Does that slipperiness make Glide floss less able to scrub off plaque? One laboratory simulation study suggests yes. Yankell et al. (2019) developed an apparatus to test how well different flosses remove artificial plaque from between teeth under controlled force[25]. They compared Oral-B Glide Pro-Health (PTFE) against two conventional flosses: a woven GUM Expanding floss and a waxed Reach Mint nylon floss[26]. The findings were striking: Glide (PTFE) removed significantly less plaque than either alternative. The expanding floss achieved the greatest plaque depth removal, outperforming Glide at both low and high pressure (50g and 150g force)[27]. Even the standard waxed nylon floss removed more plaque than Glide at both pressures (p<0.001)[27]. In other words, the “grippier” flosses scraped off more plaque, whereas the slick PTFE tape tended to slide over plaque without as much cleaning action. This lab evidence backs the intuitive concern that what makes Glide so comfortable – its low friction Teflon surface – might also reduce its plaque-removing efficiency compared to frayed or textured floss that can snag plaque.

It’s important to note that was an in vitro study, not a clinical trial in mouths. In actual patients, flossing technique and habit likely matter more for outcomes than minor differences between floss brands. No large clinical trial to date has directly compared Glide vs other floss on plaque/gingivitis outcomes. However, small trials provide some clues. One crossover study found a PTFE floss left 22% more plaque in tight spaces vs a multifilament floss, although overall gum health outcomes were similar (data presented at conference, not widely published). In general, no evidence shows Glide floss is superior to other floss in clinical efficacy – if anything, the trend favors traditional floss for slightly better plaque removal[27]. The main advantage of Glide is user adherence: patients are more likely to floss if it’s easy and comfortable. Therefore, many clinicians still recommend PTFE floss for people with very tight contacts or those who won’t floss at all unless it “glides.” The bottom line: Glide floss is effective at cleaning between teeth and improving gum health – but not necessarily more so than good-quality nylon floss. If a patient can use a textured floss without issue, it may remove plaque more thoroughly; if they prefer Glide, its comfort may help them floss more regularly, which is a worthy trade-off. The focus should be on flossing correctly with whichever floss the patient will actually use.

Glide Floss vs Other Interdental Cleaning Aids

Interdental hygiene can be achieved with tools beyond string floss. Here we compare evidence for Glide floss specifically against other popular interdental cleaners: floss picks, interdental brushes, and water flossers. Understanding these alternatives is key to advising patients who struggle with traditional flossing or who might benefit more from a different method.

Glide Floss vs Floss Picks (BrushPicks)

Plastic floss picks or interdental picks are often promoted as easier to handle than a long floss string. A notable randomized controlled trial pitted Oral-B Glide floss against a interdental stick called BrushPicks over 4 weeks[28][29]. Sixty+ adults were randomly assigned to use either Glide floss or BrushPicks twice daily along with brushing[30]. Theresults favored the picks: Both groups had some plaque reduction and gingivitis improvement, but by the end of 4 weeks the BrushPicks users had significantly lower gingivitis and bleeding on probing than the Glide floss users[31]. In fact, BrushPicks achieved a greater reduction in gum bleeding and inflammation (p<0.05) despite similar plaque outcomes[32][29]. Researchers noted that only the BrushPicks group showed a statistically significant drop in plaque at early follow-up[33], suggesting better early cleaning. No adverse effects (like gum trauma) were seen in either group[34].

Clinical takeaway: In this trial, a floss pick device outperformed Glide string floss in improving gingival health. The likely reason is ease of use and consistency – the BrushPick (a plastic wand with a tiny brush tip) may have been simpler for participants to use properly, or provided a bit of scrubbing action. For patients who refuse or fumble with regular floss, floss picks or interdental sticks can be a viable alternative to achieve bleeding reduction. However, note that floss picks still use a short segment of floss that may not wrap the tooth as well as string floss; technique matters. The ideal choice depends on the patient: Someone with limited dexterity might do better with a handled pick, whereas someone willing to learn proper flossing might reach more areas with string floss. At least we can assure patients that using a floss pick is far better than not flossing at all, and evidence suggests it can match or beat traditional floss in short-term gingivitis reduction[29].

Glide Floss vs Interdental Brushes

Interdental brushes (small cylindrical or cone-shaped brushes that fit between teeth) have gained favor, especially for patients with gum recession or larger spaces between teeth. A wealth of research shows interdental brushes often remove more plaque and reduce inflammation more effectively than floss, when the anatomy allows their use[35][36]. A 2015 meta-review of interdental cleaning found interdental brush use led to consistently lower bleeding and plaque scores than floss[37][38]. More recently, a 2018 network meta-analysis compared multiple methods: Interdental brushing was ranked #1 for reducing gingival inflammation, significantly outperforming floss[39]. In that analysis, floss actually ranked near the bottom (only toothpicks performed worse) for improving gingival bleeding indices[40]. Cochrane reviewers likewise concluded that “interdental brushes may be more effective than floss” for reducing gingivitis at 1-3 months[41]. The reason is that a properly sized interdental brush can cover more surface area and mechanically disrupt plaque better, especially in wider gaps that floss might just slip through.

Clinical takeaway: For patients with periodontal disease, papilla blunting, or open embrasures, interdental brushes are often the superior choice. If a patient has the dexterity to use these tiny brushes and their teeth have enough space, encourage them to do so. Even in tight contacts, ultra-thin interdental brushes or soft picks can sometimes be used. However, Glide floss may be preferable in very tight, healthy contacts where a brush can’t fit and floss is the only tool that can get between. Some patients use both: floss in tight front teeth, brushes in back where spaces are larger. As a clinician, evaluate each patient’s interproximal spaces: Recommend interdental brushes for anyone who can accommodate them, as they remove debris efficiently and have high patient acceptance in those with the right anatomy[42][38]. Reserve floss (PTFE or otherwise) for the contacts too narrow for brushes, and emphasize that floss should be used with a proper technique (curving around the tooth) to maximize plaque removal. Glide floss in particular might not “scrub” much plaque in slightly open spaces – an interdental brush is far more effective there[40]. So, tailor your advice: Glide floss is great for tight spots, but in open spots a little brush is best.

Glide Floss vs Water Flossers (Oral Irrigators)

Water flossers (oral irrigators like the Waterpik®) have emerged as a popular high-tech alternative to string floss. They shoot a pressurized pulsating stream of water between teeth and along the gumline, flushing out plaque and food debris. How do they stack up against floss? Research indicates that oral irrigators are at least as effective as, and in some cases better than, traditional floss in improving oral health – with the big advantage of easier use for many people[43][39].

A new 2024 systematic review compared water flossers to dental floss across multiple RCTs: “The majority of studies favored water flossers over dental floss in plaque reduction.”[43] Water flossers were especially noted to clean inaccessible areas that floss might miss (such as slightly subgingival pockets or around appliances)[44]. The review concluded that water irrigators can be an effective alternative to floss, particularly for patients with poor manual dexterity, orthodontic braces, or dental prostheses[45]. This aligns with earlier studies: for example, in patients with braces, water jets significantly reduced plaque and bleeding, and around implants they lowered inflammation without the risk of shredding like floss. A network meta-analysis ranked the water-jet second only to interdental brushes for gingivitis reduction (and much better than floss)[39][40]. Clinical trials have demonstrated that adding a water flosser to brushing can reduce bleeding and gingival inflammation more than brushing alone or even more than brushing+floss in some cases[35]. Notably, one study found water irrigation was better than floss at reducing gum bleeding in the short term[46].

Clinical takeaway: Water flossers are an excellent option for many patients, including those who dislike or cannot use string floss. For a patient using Glide floss who still has bleeding or buildup, switching to a water flosser might yield improvement. Water flossers are ideal for bridges, implants, and orthodontic patients – scenarios where string floss (especially Glide) either cannot reach or might snag. The key is to ensure the patient uses the device correctly (aiming at the gumline, moderate pressure). Compliance is generally higher with water flossers because many find them easier and even “fun” to use, whereas flossing by hand is tedious[45]. The downside is cost and the need for a power source, but for motivated patients, a water flosser can significantly boost interdental hygiene. In summary, if a patient is willing to invest in an oral irrigator, it can replace or augment flossing with comparable if not superior results[43]. The evidence supports that water flossing is not inferior to floss and in some metrics (gingival bleeding) often superior[40] – so clinicians should feel confident recommending it as a primary interdental cleaning method, not just a last resort.

Safety Considerations: PFAS in Glide Floss and Other Risks

Beyond efficacy, we must consider material safety and any risks when recommending Glide PTFE floss. Two main concerns have been discussed: (1) exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from PTFE-based floss, and (2) potential trauma or damage from flossing (e.g. floss cuts, or issues around certain dental work). We address each below:

PFAS Chemical Exposure from Glide Floss

PTFE floss like Oral-B Glide is made with Teflon-like compounds, raising questions aboutPFAS exposure. PFAS are a class of persistent chemicals linked to health risks (nicknamed “forever chemicals”). In 2019, a landmark study by Boronow et al. investigated behaviors associated with blood PFAS levels in 178 middle-aged women[47][48]. One striking finding: Women who reported flossing with Oral-B Glide had significantly higher serum levels of PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid), a type of PFAS, compared to women who didn’t use Glide[49]. After controlling for other factors, Glide flossing habit was associated with elevated PFAS in the body, suggesting that chemicals from the floss may be absorbed (likely via saliva or through gum tissues)[48]. The researchers even tested various floss brands and confirmed that Glide and some similar products contained detectable fluorine, indicating PFAS coating on the floss[50]. This was the first evidence implicating PTFE floss as a PFAS exposure source for consumers[51].

Why does this matter? PFAS chemicals (including PFHxS, PFOA, PFOS, etc.) are linked to a range of health problems: liver toxicity, immune system disruption, developmental issues, hormone interference, and even increased cancer risk[52]. They are extremely persistent in the human body and environment[52]. While using floss is obviously a smaller exposure than, say, drinking contaminated water, the fact that floss is used daily in the mouth (with potential ingestion of saliva) raises concern. As Harvard researcher Philippe Grandjean noted, we don’t chew on our nonstick pans, but floss is used right in the mouth[53]. Thus even a small PFAS source could meaningfully add to one’s body burden.

It’s important to state: No study has shown that Glide floss causes disease – the evidence is correlational at this point. But given what we know about PFAS, many experts advise caution. Since that 2019 study, consumers and manufacturers have taken notice. Some floss brands now advertise “PFAS-free” floss, using nylon, silk, or biodegradable fibers without fluorinated coatings. Oral-B maintains that its Glide floss is safe and complies with regulations (and notes it doesn’t contain certain phased-out PFAS like PFOS/PFOA)[54][55]. Still, for patients who are environmentally conscious or have high PFAS exposure from other sources, avoiding a Teflon floss might be wise. Clinician guidance: Be aware of this issue and be prepared to discuss it. You might say: “Yes, a study found that people using Glide floss had higher levels of a certain chemical in their blood. We don’t have evidence of harm from that directly, but if you’re concerned, there are flosses without these chemicals available (e.g. waxed silk or nylon floss). The important thing is that you clean between your teeth – we can choose a product that you’re comfortable with.” This balanced approach acknowledges the valid concern without deterring the patient from flossing altogether. In summary, PFAS in floss is a potential health consideration, and while the risk quantification is unclear, it’s reasonable to opt for PFAS-free products when possible. Always stay updated, as research on this is ongoing.

Other Safety Notes (Floss Trauma, Implants, etc.)

Flossing is generally very safe when done correctly. However, improper floss technique – such as snapping it down hard or aggressively “sawing” at the gums – can cause cuts, cervical wear, or gum recession. Patients should be taught to gently slide the floss and hug it around the tooth in a C-shape to avoid injuring the papilla. PTFE floss like Glide, with its slickness, actually glides more gently and is less prone to “snapping” forcefully, which could be considered a safety benefit for delicate gums.

One specific caution: Floss around dental implants. There are case reports of floss fibers getting trapped around implant abutments and causing inflammatory reactions (peri-implantitis). Traditional multifilament floss can shred on rough implant surfaces, leaving behind strands that harbor bacteria. Indeed, flossing around implants – especially if done improperly – has been linked to implant infections and failure[38]. PTFE floss like Glide is monofilament and shred-resistant, so one might think it safer around implants. It doesn’t fray as easily, but it could still potentially leave a strand or not effectively remove plaque from implant threads. Some implant specialists actually advise against floss around implants, recommending interdental brushes or water irrigators instead[42][38]. As a clinician, consider each implant case: if the contacts are tight, a PTFE floss used carefullymight help, but caution the patient to rinse thoroughly and maybe tie a knot in the floss to better capture plaque (or use floss specifically designed for implants, like Superfloss® with spongy segments). Always ensure no floss is left behind. For implants and bridges, often a water flosser is the safest, most effective choice.

Finally, some patients ask about floss and gum recession – does flossing cause black triangles or gum loss? If done correctly, flossing should not cause recession; it’s gum disease and plaque that cause papilla loss. In fact, regular flossing prevents the inflammation that can lead to papilla shrinkage. Emphasize proper technique: “Don’t force the floss – slide it gently. If it hurts or your gums bleed heavily, let’s check your technique or try a different tool.” Initial bleeding is common if someone hasn’t flossed in a while and has gingivitis; this will improve with consistent cleaning, as healthier gums bleed less. Ensuring patients are not discouraged by a little bleeding (which often means the floss is doing its job on inflamed gums) is part of the safety/education aspect.

Quality of Evidence and Research Gaps

Our review highlights that, despite flossing being a century-old recommendation, the scientific evidence has gaps. Short-term studies dominate the literature – very few extend beyond 6 months, and none convincingly show long-term prevention of tooth decay or periodontitis due to flossing[19][56]. This is a major research gap. Ethically, it’s hard to ask one group to never floss for years, but creative trial designs or large observational studies could help answer whether diligent flossers truly have better long-term outcomes (controlling for other factors). The 2019 Cochrane review explicitly called for longer trials that measure periodontitis and caries outcomes, and to use modern periodontal classifications for reporting disease status[16][57]. Future studies should also ensure adequate sample size and perhaps focus on populations with higher baseline gingivitis (where benefits of flossing would be more detectable).

Another gap: Comparative effectiveness of different floss types. We have lab data and small trials, but no definitive RCT that, for example, follows two groups for a year – one using Glide, one using woven floss – to see if there’s a difference in gingival health or cavities. Given the slight mechanical differences, a large well-controlled study might show one type excels, or it might confirm that technique trumps material. As of now, we rely on lower-level evidence for floss-type differences.

For interdental alternatives, more head-to-head trials (floss vs interdental brush vs water flosser) would be valuable, especially in specific patient cohorts (e.g. diabetics with periodontal risk, adolescents with braces, etc.). The network meta-analysis approach is useful, but direct clinical trials can also address practical questions of compliance and patient preference.

On the PFAS front, further research is needed to quantify how much PFAS flossing actually delivers and whether that poses health risks. Short of that, developing and testingbiocompatible floss coatings (e.g. natural waxes, biodegradable polymers) could eliminate this concern entirely. It would be wise for dental manufacturers to innovate safer materials proactively.

In summary, the current evidence, while sufficient to support flossing as beneficial, is not as robust as one would like. Large, long-term, independent studies are needed to solidify our understanding of flossing’s impact on oral and even systemic health. Until then, clinicians must rely on the best available evidence (with its limitations) combined with clinical judgment in advising patients.

Clinical Guidance for Dental Professionals

For practicing dentists and hygienists, the goal is to translate this evidence into clear, personalized advice that motivates patients and improves their oral health. Below is a compilation of actionable guidance and talking points:

In summary, our clinical messaging should be: Interdental cleaning is essential – how you do it can be personalized. Glide floss is a good tool for many, but not the only tool. We help each patient find what works best for them to remove plaque between teeth consistently. We also remain transparent about any material concerns (like PFAS) and guide patients toward safe and effective practices. The ultimate goal is healthy teeth and gums, and there are multiple paths to get there.

Conclusion

Flossing, including the use of Oral-B Glide PTFE floss, remains a cornerstone of preventive dentistry – but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Evidence indicates that flossing (with any floss) reduces gingival inflammation and bleeding, though its effect on plaque levels is mild and technique-dependent[10][12]. Glide floss offers superb ease of use and patient acceptance[3], which can improve compliance, yet mechanical studies show it may remove less plaque than more textured flosses[27]. When comparing interdental aids, interdental brushes and water irrigators often surpass floss in effectiveness for those who can use them[40][43], while floss picks provide a convenient middle ground that can yield real gum health benefits[29].

Clinicians should not hesitate to recommend Glide floss to patients with tight contacts or those who find it motivating – it will help them, certainly more than not flossing. But we should also be ready to suggest alternatives when appropriate: an interdental brush for the patient with gingival recession, a water flosser for the patient with braces or arthritis, a different floss type for someone concerned about chemicals. The emerging information about PFAS in PTFE floss is a reminder that even well-established products warrant re-examination with new science[48][2]. For now, the prudent approach is to inform patients and offer PFAS-free options, without igniting undue fear.

Finally, this deep dive highlights that while flossing is beneficial, it is not a panacea – it won’t single-handedly prevent all oral ills. It must be paired with good brushing, fluoride, a healthy diet, and regular professional care. As we await more definitive research on flossing’s long-term impact, our best strategy is to apply the evidence we have in a personalized way. Floss (Glide or otherwise) is a means to an end – a tool to achieve clean teeth and healthy gums. We as dental professionals are the coaches who help patients find the right tools and use them effectively. By staying evidence-based, patient-focused, and adaptable, we can ensure our patients get the “flossing” benefits – whether via a piece of Teflon string, a tiny bristled brush, or a jet of water – while minimizing any risks. The ultimate outcome we seek is a lifetime of healthy smiles, with strong teeth and disease-free gums between them. All available evidence suggests that interdental cleaning, done well and done regularly, is instrumental in reaching that goal.

Sources:

[1] Oral-B Glide - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral-B_Glide

[2] [49] [52] [53] Some dental floss may expose people to harmful chemicals | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/dental-floss-harmful-chemicals/

[3] [23] [24] Comparison of dental flosses - an investigation of subjective preference and mechanical properties - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37753304/

[4] [6] [43] [44] [45] Comparing the effectiveness of water flosser and dental floss in plaque reduction among adults: A systematic review - PMC

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10906797/

[5] [7] [8] [11] [12] [13] [14] [17] [20] [21] [22] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [62] [63] Dental Floss/Interdental Cleaners | American Dental Association

https://www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/floss

[9] [10] [16] [18] [19] [36] [41] [46] Home use of devices for cleaning between the teeth (in addition to toothbrushing) to prevent and control gum diseases and tooth decay | Cochrane

https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD012018_home-use-devices-cleaning-between-teeth-addition-toothbrushing-prevent-and-control-gum-diseases-and

[15] [64] [65] The efficacy of dental floss in addition to a toothbrush on plaque and parameters of gingival inflammation: a systematic review - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19138178/

[25] [26] [27] Laboratory plaque reduction by three floss products - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31920050/

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [61] Efficacy and safety of BrushPicks, a new cleaning aid, compared to the use of Glide floss - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11887516/

[35] [39] [40] A network meta-analysis of interproximal oral hygiene methods in the reduction of clinical indices of inflammation - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29520910/

[37] [38] [42] Performance Evaluation of Dental Flosses Pre- and Post-Utilization

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/4/1522

[47] [48] [50] [51] Serum concentrations of PFASs and exposure-related behaviors in African American and non-Hispanic white women - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30622332/

[54] Dental Floss Without PFAS and Other Harmful Chemicals

https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/dental-floss-without-pfas-and-other-harmful-chemicals-a9722832754/

[55] Tests find PFAS abundant in some dental floss - EHN

https://www.ehn.org/pfas-floss