String Floss vs. Water Floss: A Decade of Evidence-Based Comparison

August 5, 2025

TLDR: Water flossers vs. string floss

Brushing your teeth isn’t enough. You need to clean between them too.

✅ Water flossers (like Waterpik) and string floss both work to clean between teeth and keep your gums healthy.

💧 Water flossers:

Use water to clean deep between teeth and below the gums
Help stop bleeding gums and swelling
Are easier to use for people with braces, implants, or arthritis
Are safe for everyday use

🦷 String floss:

Scrapes plaque off the sides of teeth
Works well if you use it the right way (most people don’t)

🧠 Dentists and gum doctors (periodontists) say:

Water flossing is as good or better than string floss for many people
The best tool is the one you’ll use every day
If flossing is too hard or annoying, using a water flosser is way better than nothing—and it can help your gums feel less sore, red, or puffy.

Bottom line: Clean between your teeth every day. How you do it matters less than actually doing it.

Plaque and Biofilm Reduction

Effective plaque removal is the cornerstone of preventing caries and periodontal disease. Traditional string floss physically shears plaque from proximal tooth surfaces, while water flossers (oral irrigators) use pulsating streams to disrupt and flush plaque. Recent systematic reviews and trials indicate that water flossers are at least as effective as string floss in removing interdental plaque, with several studies even favoring water irrigation. In a 2023 review of RCTs, most studies showed greater plaque reduction with water flossers than with floss[1]. Water irrigation can reach areas that floss may miss, such as irregular interdental niches or subgingival regions, leading to superior plaque removal in hard-to-access sites[2]. For example, one trial found a water flosser significantly outperformed floss on molar and premolar surfaces that are notoriously difficult to clean[2]. After a single use, water flossers and string floss remove comparable amounts of plaque (roughly 85–89% of plaque in one study)[3]. Notably, no significant difference in plaque index was seen after one cleaning in a split-mouth RCT (each method used on opposite sides) – both floss and a Waterpik® cordless irrigator reduced ~87–89% of plaque, demonstrating parity in efficacy for immediate plaque removal[3][4].

Laboratory data reinforce these findings: a 3-second application of a pulsating water jet removed over 99% of plaque biofilm from treated tooth surfaces in an ex vivo model[5]. Such dramatic in vitro results highlight that water pulsation can physically disrupt biofilm matrix. Clinically, four-week trials adding a water flosser to brushing have shown whole-mouth plaque reductions on the order of 50–75%, sometimes significantly better than achieved with brushing plus floss[6][7]. It’s worth noting that some systematic reviews (e.g. Husseini et al. 2008) found oral irrigators did not always yield lower visible plaque indices than brushing alone, even though gingival health improved[8]. This suggests water flossers may impact plaque biology (by disrupting plaque and reducing pathogenicity) more than they visibly remove every bit of plaque. In summary, current evidence supports that a water flosser can match or even exceed string floss in plaque/biofilm disruption when used properly[1].

Gingival Inflammation and Bleeding

One of the clearest advantages of water flossing is in reducing gingival inflammation and bleeding. Multiple RCTs have demonstrated significantly greater improvement in gingival indices with water irrigators compared to floss. Water flossers deliver a pulsating hydraulic action that not only cleans but also massages the gingiva, improving circulation. In a recent 4-week trial (Mancinelli-Lyle et al. 2023), a water flosser plus toothbrushing led to a far greater reduction in bleeding on probing (BOP) and gingivitis scores than toothbrushing with string floss[9]. Whole-mouth BOP dropped by 41 percentage points in the water flosser group vs. only 19 points in the floss group over 4 weeks[9]. Likewise, the Modified Gingival Index improved twice as much with water irrigation (0.37 vs. 0.20 mean reduction)[10]. These findings echo earlier studies: e.g. Barnes et al. 2005 found that brushing + water irrigator reduced gingival bleeding significantly more than brushing + floss[11].

Across trials, water flossers consistently outperform floss in reducing gingival bleeding. A recent summary in the British Dental Journal noted that daily water flossing was up to twice as effective as string floss in reducing bleeding within 2–4 weeks[12]. Gingival inflammation (redness, swelling) likewise improves more with water irrigation – reductions in gingivitis scores 50–90% greater than achieved by floss have been reported[13]. This superior performance is likely because the irrigating water penetrates slightly below the gumline and flushes out subgingival bacteria and debris, thereby reducing the source of inflammation. Even in areas of mild gingivitis, water flossers can reduce bleeding sites more rapidly. For example, one study found 51% of bleeding sites were reduced by water flossing vs. only 21% with flossing after 2 weeks, and by four weeks water irrigation was nearly twice as effective in resolving gingival bleeding[12]. The greater efficacy in bleeding reduction has been shown not just for natural teeth but also around implants and orthodontic brackets (where gingivitis can be prevalent, as discussed later).

Importantly, water flossers achieve these gingival benefits without causing trauma. Patients sometimes report initial mild gum bleeding when starting any interdental cleaning (especially if gingiva are inflamed), but this typically resolves as inflammation decreases. Overall, the evidence strongly supports water flossing as more effective than flossing for improving gingival health, making it an excellent tool for controlling chronic gingivitis and preventing progression to periodontitis[13].

Periodontal Pockets and Subgingival Access

A critical question for periodontal care is how well each method accesses subgingival areas, especially pockets >3–4 mm deep. String floss is limited in subgingival reach – at best it can scrape a millimeter or two below the gingival margin (essentially cleaning the sulcus of shallow (1–3 mm) pockets). Deeper pockets or concave root surfaces are virtually impossible to clean with floss alone. Water irrigators, by contrast, can penetrate deeper due to the hydraulic pressure driving the irrigant below the gumline. Pulsating water has been shown to reach into pockets up to 5–6 mm deep, disrupting bacteria even at the base of deeper periodontal pockets[14]. In a classic experiment by Cobb et al., teeth with 6 mm periodontal pockets were irrigated for 8 seconds; subsequent microscopic analysis showed a marked reduction of bacteria throughout the pocket, including the 5–6 mm zone, compared to non-irrigated controls[14]. Notably, there was no injury to the tissue or penetration of water into the soft tissue – only clearance of subgingival microbes[15]. Similarly, Drisko et al. observed significant reductions in spirochetes from 6 mm pockets after routine water irrigation[16]. These data debunk the old notion that “water only cleans half as deep”: in reality, water flossing can reach ~90% of the depth of a 6 mm pocket, whereas string floss is ineffective much beyond 2–3 mm[14].

Clinical studies confirm that water flossers can help reduce periodontal pocket depths when used adjunctively. In patients with mild to moderate periodontitis (pockets in the 4–6 mm range), adding daily water irrigation leads to greater pocket depth reduction than brushing (or even brushing + floss) alone[17]. One trial in adults with gingival health maintenance needs found that over 6 weeks, both flossing and water flossing with brushing produced statistically significant pocket depth reductions and even small gains in clinical attachment level (CAL) – but the water flosser group showed greater improvement than the floss group[18]. Specifically, probing depths dropped more in the irrigator group, and CAL (a critical measure of periodontal support) improved correspondingly[18]. While the absolute changes were modest (as expected in a short duration in patients without severe periodontitis), the trend favored water irrigation. This aligns with a 2018 finding thatadding a water flosser to brushing yielded slightly better pocket depth and CAL outcomes than brushing alone, indicating the irrigator caused no harm to attachment and may aid in maintaining attachment levels[19]. In diabetic patients with periodontal disease, irrigation with a subgingival tip after scaling led to stable or improved attachment levels over 3 months – no CAL loss occurred, and pocket depths trended down (from mean 3.55 mm to 3.23 mm) with water floss use[19].

The ability to deliver antimicrobial solutions via irrigators can further enhance subgingival cleaning. Specialized tips (e.g. Pik Pocket™ tip) permit targeted subgingival delivery of antimicrobials (chlorhexidine, essential oils, etc.) into deep pockets. This can reduce bacterial loads and inflammation in sites too deep for floss threads. Overall, for pockets beyond 3 mm, water flossers provide access and therapeutic benefits that floss simply cannot. They flush subgingival crevices, disrupt biofilm in pocket depths, and do so safely without harming the junctional epithelium[15]. This makes them particularly valuable in periodontal maintenance and for patients with deeper residual pockets.

Clinical Attachment Level (CAL) Outcomes

Maintenance of clinical attachment (and ideally gain of attachment in periodontitis) is the ultimate goal of periodontal therapy. Interdental cleaning alone cannot regenerate attachment, but effective plaque control prevents further attachment loss. The question is whether water flossers vs. string floss differ in preserving CAL over time. Direct long-term comparative data on CAL are limited, as most home-care studies are short (4–12 weeks) and not powered to detect CAL changes. However, indirect evidence suggests water irrigation is at least as good as flossing for CAL maintenance. As noted above, short-term trials have shown no adverse effects on attachment with water irrigators – in fact, slight CAL gains have been observed alongside pocket depth reduction[18].

For example, in one 6-week study, both floss and water flosser users had a small CAL improvement (~0.2 mm), likely due to resolution of inflammation and subsequent gingival recession shrinkage yielding a slightly shallower probing depth (which can appear as CAL gain). The water flosser group’s CAL gain was marginally greater than the floss group’s[18]. In another study (Al-Mubarak et al. in a diabetic population), no loss of attachment occurred with daily subgingival water irrigation over 3 months – an important safety finding – and periodontal indices improved[19]. Meanwhile, historical data show that flossing as an adjunct to brushing has minimal impact on attachment levels; floss’s benefit is primarily in gingivitis reduction, not in demonstrated CAL gains. Flossing alone has not shown significant long-term CAL changes in gingivitis patients (and older reviews found floss + brushing was no better than brushing alone for preventing attachment loss)[20]. Thus, the focus shifts to preventing CAL loss by controlling inflammation – an area where water flossers excel. By reducing bleeding and gingivitis more effectively, water flossers may create a periodontal environment less prone to ongoing attachment loss. Over years, consistent use could translate to improved CAL stability.

It’s worth noting that no study suggests water flossing causes attachment damage;concerns that water irrigation might “disturb” the attachment or widen the sulcus are not supported by evidence[21][19]. On the contrary, histologic studies show reduced inflammation in the junctional epithelium and connective tissue when routine irrigation is employed, even in 3–6 mm pockets[22][23]. Given these findings, a board-certified periodontist would be confident that recommending a water flosser will not harm attachment – and might actually better preserve the supporting apparatus by keeping inflammation at bay. In sum, both floss and water flossing help maintain periodontal attachment by controlling plaque, but water flossers’ superior impact on gingival health suggests they are at least equivalent, if not beneficial, for long-term CAL preservation in compliant patients[18].

Patient Compliance and Real-World Efficacy

One of the most pivotal factors in any home care recommendation is patient compliance. The best interdental device is the one a patient will actually use consistently. Here, traditional floss often fails – studies and surveys have repeatedly shown low long-term adherence to flossing in the general population. For example, only about 30% of adults report flossing daily, while roughly one-third never floss at all[24]. Many patients find flossing technique-sensitive, time-consuming, or physically difficult (especially for those with limited dexterity or who simply dislike the process)[25]. This compliance problem limits floss’s real-world effectiveness despite its theoretical benefits.

Water flossers, on the other hand, can improve patient acceptance. The device does require an upfront purchase and some setup, but once patients incorporate it, many find it easier and even pleasurable to use. There is no intricate finger wrapping or effort to reach the posterior teeth with hands in the mouth – instead, the patient simply traces the waterjet along the gumline. Anecdotally, patients often report their mouth “feels fresher and cleaner” after water flossing, which can reinforce continued use[26][27]. In the clinical setting, we see higher compliance with water irrigators especially in patients who have failed to establish a floss habit. A case report on a type 2 diabetic patient is illustrative: the patient would not floss at all, but when given a Waterpik® and shown how to use it, he used it twice daily with ease – and achieved a dramatic reduction in bleeding sites from 85 to 7 and improvement in pocket depths within 7 weeks[28][27]. His motivation was partly driven by how easy the device was and how clean his mouth felt, as he reported in follow-up[26][27].

From a broader perspective, any method that lowers the barrier to daily interdental cleaning can markedly improve outcomes. Water flossers tend to be less technique-sensitive; while proper angulation and thoroughness still matter, the learning curve is gentler than with floss. Patients with poor manual dexterity (e.g. arthritis, disabilities, or simply low skill) who struggle with string floss can handle a water flosser by simply guiding a nozzle – indeed, clinicians explicitly recommend water flossers for patients lacking manual dexterity[4]. Caregivers can also use water irrigators to help dependents (e.g. an elderly or special needs patient) achieve plaque control that flossing by proxy would not accomplish[4].

In real-world use, water flossers also save time: a full mouth can be irrigated in about 1–2 minutes, which for many is faster than meticulous flossing. The sensory aspect (water flow) is tolerable for most; even patients who hate the tactile sensation of floss between teeth may find water more acceptable. All these factors mean that patient compliance with water flossers can be superior to floss in practice, especially over the long term. A device that a patient enjoys and uses daily will far outperform an “ideal” device left unused in the medicine cabinet. Therefore, periodontists often emphasize to general dentists that recommending a water flosser may lead to better patient adherence, translating into better clinical outcomes than advising floss for a patient who is unlikely to comply.

Special Populations: Ortho, Implants, Bridges, and More

Certain patient populations derive particular benefit from water flossing, and current evidence and expert opinion strongly support recommending it in these scenarios:

Orthodontic Patients (Braces): Cleaning around brackets and wires is notoriously challenging. Threading floss under archwires for each tooth is tedious, and compliance among ortho patients (often adolescents) is low. Water irrigators, especially with an orthodontic tip, excel here. A landmark study in orthodontic patients showed that a water flosser with an ortho tip led to significantly less plaque and bleeding compared to floss threaders over 4 weeks[29]. Another RCT in ortho patients (Sawan et al. 2022) found both water flossers and specialized “superfloss” could reduce plaque and gingival bleeding, butpatients often prefer the waterjet for ease – and outcomes were at least equivalent[30][31]. In practice, most orthodontists and periodontists consider water flossers an extremely useful adjunct for braces, often recommending them as first-line for interdental cleaning in ortho. The pulsating water can flush out food debris and plaque from under wires and around brackets where brushes and floss struggle to reach.

Dental Implants: Maintenance of peri-implant health is critical, as implants are susceptible to peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Traditional floss can be used around implants, but there is some caution – if floss fibers shred and get trapped around implant abutments, they can actually induce inflammation. Water flossers offer a non-abrasive, penetrating clean around implants. Clinical data strongly favor irrigation: in a randomized trial at Tufts, 81.8% of implants had reduced BOP (bleeding on probing) after 30 days of water flossing, compared to only 33.3% of implants in the flossing group[32]. The water flosser group’s peri-implant bleeding reduction was statistically superior[33]. Another study found water irrigation around implants was more than twice as effective as floss for improving gingival health and reducing bleeding indices[34][35]. Consequently, many periodontists consider a water flosser an excellent adjunct (or even alternative) to floss for implants, particularly in patients with multiple implant restorations. It allows gentle irrigation around the implant crown and sulcus without the risk of leaving fibers. Implant maintenance protocols (per AAP guidelines) often include oral irrigators as a recommended home-care device for suitable patients[36].

Fixed Bridges and Dental Prostheses: Patients with fixed bridgework (pontics) or splinted crowns have interproximal areas that floss cannot easily thread into without special tools. Floss threaders or superfloss are options, but many patients struggle to use them regularly. A water flosser can be directed under the pontic of a bridge to flush out food and plaque. It is frequently recommended for bridge hygiene. Literature specifically on bridges is sparse, but extrapolating from orthodontic and implant data, water jets effectively clean under prosthetic elements. Clinically, we see lower incidence of pontic inflammation (such as gingival redness under a bridge) when patients water-floss these areas vs. when they attempt (and often fail) to floss under the bridge. Experts have thus included “patients with fixed dental prostheses” among those who should consider water flossers[31].

Patients with Limited Dexterity or Caregiver Situations: As noted under compliance, anyone with arthritis, disabilities, or simply poor coordination will benefit from an easier method. Flossing requires finger agility and hand-mouth coordination that many older patients or those with conditions like Parkinson’s, post-stroke deficits, etc., find impractical. Water flossers allow these patients (or their caregivers) to maintain interproximal cleanliness. Even for younger patients with physical impairments, an irrigator can foster independence in oral hygiene. Given the aging population, this is a significant group – and periodontal specialists often specifically recommend water flossers for patients who physically cannot floss well[4].

Diabetic Patients: Diabetes is a risk factor for periodontitis, and conversely, periodontal inflammation can worsen glycemic control. Therefore, rigorous plaque control is especially vital in diabetics. An intriguing study in a diabetic cohort (Al-Mubarak et al. 2002) found that adding twice-daily water irrigation (with a subgingival tip) to routine care after SRP resulted in better plaque, gingivitis, and BOP reduction than routine oral hygiene alone, and even yielded systemic benefits: the irrigation group had significantly lower serum IL-1β and PGE₂ levels (inflammatory markers) after 3 months[37]. This suggests improved periodontal health from water flossing can reduce the inflammatory burden in diabetics. Additionally, no adverse changes in blood glucose were noted. Given that many diabetics have gingival bleeding issues, water flossers are a valuable tool – they can be more effective than floss in reducing inflammation without causing undue trauma. The improved outcomes in the study above led authors to conclude the Waterpik irrigator provided “significant periodontal health benefits, both clinically and biologically, to people with diabetes”[38][39]. A periodontist would likely encourage diabetic patients to use a water flosser as an adjunct to brushing, due to its proven ability to reduce periodontal inflammation (which in turn may help glycemic control).

Patients with Periodontitis or Peri-implantitis History: Those in periodontal maintenance programs often have residual pockets or difficult anatomies (furcations, root concavities). Interdental brushes are great where spaces allow, but in tight areas or deep pockets, water irrigation is extremely useful. Pulsating water can penetrate into furcation entrances and pocket depths better than floss. Furthermore, antimicrobial irrigation (with diluted chlorhexidine or essential oils in the reservoir) can be part of a home regimen for these high-risk patients. Clinical insight and some research (e.g. Chaves et al. 1994) indicate that daily water irrigation with antimicrobial solutions can suppress subgingival pathogens better than rinsing or brushing alone[40][41]. Therefore, for patients susceptible to periodontal relapse, a water flosser is often recommended as anadjunctive therapy to maintain periodontal stability.

In all the above special populations, water flossers are generally seen as either an adjunctor, in many cases, an alternative to string floss. A board-certified periodontist would tailor the recommendation: for instance, an orthodontic patient might be told that water flossing daily is effectively replacing the need for floss during braces (since flossing with threaders is so impractical); an implant patient may be advised to irrigate around implants as a primary means of interdental cleaning; a patient with both implants and natural teeth might use a combination of interdental brushes (where possible) and water irrigation elsewhere. The versatility of water flossers across various prosthetic and anatomical challenges makes them a go-to recommendation in specialty practice.

Safety and Risks of Water Flossing

General dentists trained prior to ~2015 may recall skepticism about oral irrigators – concerns that water jets could harm tissue, force bacteria into the bloodstream, or simply “push food around” without real benefit. It is important to address these directly with evidence:

Tissue Safety: Modern pulsating water flossers have been extensively studied for safety. The consensus is that they are safe on gingival tissues and periodontal attachment when used as directed. Histological studies show reduced inflammation in gingival tissues with regular irrigation, not damage[22][42]. For example, Lainson et al. demonstrated that gingival biopsies after 4 weeks of daily water irrigation had significantly fewer inflammatory cells and more normal tissue architecture compared to non-irrigated sites in the same mouth[43]. Critically, the junctional epithelium remains intact – an 8-second irrigation in 6 mm pockets caused no detectable epithelial disruption under microscopy[44]. Clinical attachment levels are not harmed; multiple trials report no loss of attachment or increase in pocket depth from water flosser use, even at high pressure settings[19]. In fact, a 2018 study specifically evaluated a Waterpik at maximum setting (~100 PSI) and found it caused no adverse changes in gingiva or attachment, with some sites showing slight improvements in periodontal indices[45][46]. The devices are designed to have a compression and decompression phase (pulsation), which effectively cleans without continuous pressure that could traumatize tissue[47]. The take-home point: When used properly, water flossers do not “cut” or damage gums – they are gentle enough for daily use, even in periodontal pockets, as confirmed by clinical and histological data[21].

Bacteremia: Any oral hygiene procedure can cause transient bacteremia (including toothbrushing and flossing). Older dentists might worry that water irrigation could drive bacteria into the gingiva and bloodstream more than flossing. Research does not support an excessive risk here. The incidence of bacteremia from oral irrigator use ranges from ~7% in gingivitis patients to ~50% in those with periodontitis[48]. This is in the same ballpark as toothbrushing or flossing in similar patients (for comparison, brushing can cause bacteremia in ~20–68% of cases with gum inflammation)[49]. Notably, water irrigators remove bacteria from pockets rather than pushing them inward – they create an outward flushing current. Cobb’s aforementioned study actually found fewer bacteria at 6 mm after irrigation and no sign of microbes being injected into tissues[50][16]. For patients at risk of infective endocarditis or other conditions requiring antibiotic prophylaxis for invasive dental procedures, most guidelines equate routine oral hygiene (brushing, flossing, water flossing) as activities that do not require prophylaxis, since they are regular, unavoidable exposures. A periodontist would advise that water flossers are no more contraindicated in these patients than floss or brushing – maintaining oral health (to reduce chronic bacteremia from periodontitis) is far more important. That said, patients with severe periodontal disease should be instructed to start gently and improve gingival health; as bleeding reduces, bacteremia risk will also drop.

Improper Use and Precautions: The main precaution with water flossers is to use amoderate setting and proper angle (45° to the gingival margin) rather than jetting directly into the pocket at full power for prolonged periods. If a patient were to place the tip perpendicular to the tooth and power-spray deep into a pocket, theoretically they could cause minor trauma or force water into the sulcus too rapidly. However, with pulsating devices, this risk is low. Inexperienced users might experience slight gum bleeding or soreness initially – usually a sign of pre-existing inflammation, not injury. Emphasize to patients that they should start at low pressure and gradually increase to a comfortable, effective level (most can tolerate and benefit from high settings once gums are healthy)[51][26]. Another consideration is device hygiene: water reservoirs and tips can grow biofilm over time. Patients should be instructed to flush out the unit regularly, clean or replace tips per manufacturer guidelines, and not share tips between individuals to avoid cross-contamination[52][53].

Contraindications: There are very few true contraindications to water flossing. Even patients with periodontal surgery sites or extractions can typically resume gentle irrigation after initial healing (though direct high-pressure irrigation of a fresh extraction socket or surgical wound is not advised). Patients with acute oral infections (abscesses) should follow professional guidance; while irrigation can help clear debris, it’s not a substitute for treating the source, and forceful irrigation of an abscessed pocket isn’t recommended due to potential discomfort and dissemination of bacteria. Some sources caution against use in individuals with mucosal conditions or open wounds, but these are situational – for example, someone with an acute necrotizing periodontal condition might defer irrigation until initial debridement is done due to pain, not because the device is intrinsically harmful. In practice, virtually any patient who can brush can also water-floss. For the elderly or those with extremely delicate mucosa, starting at the very lowest setting can prevent any chance of tissue irritation. The notion that “people over 60 shouldn’t use water flossers because teeth are weaker”[54] is a myth with no scientific basis; plenty of septuagenarian patients safely and effectively use oral irrigators as part of their daily routine.

Myths vs. Facts: To summarize common misconceptions held by some dentists and the evidence-based refutation:

Myth: “Water flossers only remove food particles, not plaque.”
Fact: Water irrigators have been shown to significantly remove plaque biofilm and reduce bacterial load. Clinical trials prove they can reduce plaque scores as effectively as floss[3][31], and a 3-second water jet application removed ~99% of plaque in laboratory tests[55]. They do far more than rinse out food debris – they disrupt organized biofilm on the tooth surface.

Myth: “String floss cleans deeper than water – water can’t reach the bottom of the pocket.”
Fact: The opposite is true. String floss is limited to shallow subgingival reach (~2–3 mm) and cannot reach into deep pockets or furcations. Water flossers penetrate significantly deeper, reaching ~5–6 mm and flushing bacteria from periodontal pockets[14]. Studies in 6 mm pockets showed marked bacterial reduction at the base of pockets with water irrigation, with no damage to tissues[14][16]. Floss simply cannot access those areas effectively.

Myth: “Water jets might push bacteria or debris into the gums and cause infection or abscesses.”
Fact: Research shows water flossing expels bacteria from pockets instead of forcing them in. No evidence of water being driven into tissue has been found histologically[15]. On the contrary, irrigation leads to less subgingival bacteria and inflammation. The incidence of bacteremia from water flossing is no higher than normal brushing[48]. Proper technique (45° angle, not aiming directly into a pocket from below) avoids any undue intrusion. When used correctly, a water flosser is as safe as brushing your teeth.

Myth: “Water flossers are too messy or inconvenient; patients won’t use them long-term.”
Fact: While there is a bit of splash, most patients quickly adapt to a routine (leaning over the sink, etc.). Many actually find it easier and more pleasant than string flossing, leading to better long-term adherence. As discussed, compliance with floss is poor, whereas patients given water flossers often report high satisfaction and daily use[26][27]. Modern devices come in countertop or cordless options to suit patient lifestyles, and the time investment is minimal (~1 minute a day). The initial learning curve is quickly overcome, and real-world usage is high among motivated patients.

Myth: “There’s no added benefit to water flossing if someone already flosses – it’s just an adjunct for those who refuse to floss.”
Fact: Water flossing is indeed an adjunct to toothbrushing, but it’s not merely a second-rate substitute. Even in diligent flossers, adding water irrigation can yield further improvements in gum health (by flushing areas floss might miss). For patients who cannot or will not floss, a water flosser is a vastly superior alternative to doing nothing – it can achieve meaningful plaque and gingivitis reduction on its own[1][13]. In certain cases (implants, ortho, deep pockets), water flossing is actually preferable to flossing. A 2023 review concluded water flossers can be used as an effective alternative to floss, especially for patients with orthodontics, prostheses, or dexterity issues[56][57]. Far from being a gimmick, oral irrigation is an evidence-based tool that can either complement or replace string floss in a home care regimen, depending on the individual case.

Periodontist’s Perspective: Recommendations and Best Practices

Given the evidence from the past decade, a board-certified periodontist today would likely advise general dentists to embrace water flossers as a valuable component of patients’ oral hygiene, rather than viewing them with skepticism. The consensus in contemporary periodontics is that interdental cleaning should be personalized: the traditional “floss everyone” mantra has given way to recommending the method that each patient can use effectively. Interdental brushes are ideal for patients with open contacts or moderate attachment loss (they mechanically remove plaque well in accessible areas), but for tight contacts or patients who won’t use tiny brushes, string floss or water flossers are next in line. Between those two, water flossers have proven advantages in ease-of-use and gingival outcomes. Thus, many periodontists consider the water flosser an excellent adjunct to brushing – often superior to floss in certain contexts – and at least an acceptable substitute in virtually all contexts.

In practical guidance to patients, a periodontist might say: “If you are flossing effectively every day, keep it up – but if you find flossing difficult or are not doing it regularly, consider investing in a good water flosser. The goal is daily interdental plaque control, and a water flosser can achieve that with equal or better results in terms of gum health.” They would emphasize that brushing alone leaves a significant percentage of plaque behind interdentally[58], so some form of interdental cleaning is mandatory. For patients with bleeding gums or periodontal pockets, the periodontist may actually prefer the patient use a water flosser (potentially with an antimicrobial rinse) rather than risk improper flossing that might cut the gums or simply be ineffective. It is no longer viewed as “cheating” or an inferior shortcut – it’s a scientifically validated method. The periodontist would also stress that using both tools is fine – they are not mutually exclusive. Some patients use floss to scrape between tight teeth and then water-floss to flush out debris and massage gums. This combination can be very effective for those willing to do it. But for most patients, expecting them to do both daily is unrealistic; hence we prioritize the tool that will confer the greatest benefit.

When discussing with a general dentist colleague, a periodontist may highlight the scenarios where water flossing is clearly advantageous: “For your patient with braces or that implant bridge, a water flosser is not just an adjunct – it’s likely the key to preventing gingivitis there.” They would point out the implant bleeding study[32] to show that traditional floss often fails to maintain peri-implant health, whereas water irrigation excels. Likewise, “For Mrs. Jones with arthritis, by all means get her a water flosser – flossing is never going to happen with her hands, and without interdental cleaning her periodontal maintenance will fail.” The evidence supports these targeted recommendations.

Another important aspect a periodontist would convey is correcting outdated information that many dentists trained before 2010 might still carry. For instance, some were taught that“there’s no scientific proof flossing works” (stemming from media coverage of older ambiguous data) – which might make them hesitant to push any interdental cleaning. The periodontist would clarify: interdental cleaning absolutely works to reduce gingivitis and interproximal plaque; if flossing as traditionally prescribed is too hard for many patients, then alternatives like water flossers should be promoted, not ignored. The 2019 Cochrane review on interdental cleaning concluded that floss or interdental brushes with toothbrushing improves gum health over brushing alone[59]. The periodontist would update that by adding: and modern studies show water flossers are as good or better than floss in achieving those improvements[1][13]. Therefore, the “best practice” is to recommend interdental cleaning tailored to the patient’s needs and abilities – which very often means recommending a water flosser.

In terms of official endorsements: While the ADA and other organizations historically focused on floss, they have begun acknowledging water flossers. The ADA’s consumer guidance now notes that water flossers can be a helpful alternative, especially for those with braces or dental work, and several products carry the ADA Seal of Acceptance. The American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) has likewise included oral irrigators in patient education resources as effective devices for plaque control. A periodontist might mention these to reassure both the dentist and the patient that using a water flosser is not “controversial” – it’s mainstream and evidence-based.

Adjunct, Substitute, or Superior? – Ultimately, how would a periodontist frame water flossing relative to string floss? Based on current evidence: - Adjunct to brushing – Yes, unequivocally (just like floss is an adjunct to brushing, so is water flossing; neither is a stand-alone replacement for brushing). - Substitute for floss – In many cases, yes. If a patient will water-floss daily and not floss, then it effectively substitutes for floss in their regimen. The term “alternative” is often used: water flossing is an alternative interdental cleaning method with proven efficacy[56]. There are even situations where one could argue it’s the preferred substitute (implants, ortho, etc., as detailed). A periodontist would rarely insist a patient do both floss and water irrigate unless there’s a specific indication; doing one well is sufficient for most patients. - Superior in certain cases – Absolutely. The periodontal specialist recognizes that for braces, implants, deep pockets, or non-compliant flossers, water flossers are superior in practical outcomes. They achieve things floss cannot (like reaching into a 5 mm pocket or around a fixed appliance) and thus are conditionally superior. Even in head-to-head studies in healthy adults, water flossers have shown superior bleeding and gingivitis reductions[13][9]. So, yes, in terms of gingival health improvement, one could say water flossers are superior to floss for reducing inflammation, while being roughly equal in removing plaque.

In conclusion, the contemporary periodontal view is that water flossers are a scientifically validated tool that can significantly improve patients’ interdental hygiene and periodontal outcomes. Far from being a mere gadget, they have earned a place in our armamentarium next to floss and interdental brushes. A board-certified periodontist would encourage general dentists to update their patient instructions to include water flossers as a recommended option. By dispelling myths and highlighting evidence, we ensure patients receive the best advice for oral home care. The message to convey is: interdental cleaning is non-negotiable for oral health – whether the patient uses string floss, a water flosser, or another device, we should support whichever method will achieve clean, healthy interproximal tissues. And given the data we now have, we can confidently recommend water flossing as an effective, safe, and often preferred method for many patients to maintain their periodontal health[1][13].

Sources:

Mohapatra S. et al. (2023). Water flosser vs. dental floss for plaque reduction – systematic review J Indian Soc Periodontol. 27(6):559-567[1][57].

Abdellatif H. et al. (2021). Water flosser as efficient as floss in single-use plaque removalSaudi Dent J. 33(5):256-259[3][4].

Mancinelli-Lyle D. et al. (2023). Water flossing efficacy on inflammation and plaque – 4-week RCT Int J Dent Hyg. 21(4):659-668[9][46].

British Dental Journal (2025). “Should water flossing become an integral part of oral hygiene?” Br Dent J 238:590[5][13].

Magnuson B. et al. (2013). Water flosser vs. floss around implants – 30-day RCTCompend Contin Educ Dent 34(Spec No 8):2-7[32][33].

Al-Mubarak S. et al. (2002). Adjunctive oral irrigation in diabetics J Clin Periodontol29:295-300[37][39].

Barnes CM. et al. (2005). Irrigation to floss comparison as adjunct to brushing J Clin Dent16(3):71-77[11].

Goyal CR. et al. (2018). Water flosser plus brushing vs. brushing alone J Clin Dent29(4):81-86[46].

Safety of oral irrigators – Literature review (2015) Compend Contin Educ Dent 36(2 Suppl):14-20[14][19].

Husseini A. et al. (2008). Systematic review of oral irrigation adjunct to brushing Int J Dent Hyg 6:304-314[8].

[1] [56] [57] Comparing the effectiveness of water flosser and dental floss in plaque reduction among adults: A systematic review - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38434511/

[2] jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir

https://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-141-fa.pdf

[3] [4] [30] [31] Comparison between water flosser and regular floss in the efficacy of plaque removal in patients after single use - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34194188/

[5] [12] [13] [17] [18] [25] [29] [55] [58] Should water flossing become an integral part of oral hygiene? | British Dental Journal

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-025-8648-9?error=cookies_not_supported&code=64d3e89f-00d5-4b19-91b9-99b5ce9b45e7

[6] [7] [14] [15] [16] [20] [47] [50] Relevance of the Water Flosser: 50 Years of Data | Compendium

https://compendiumlive.com/2012/04/relevance-of-the-water-flosser-50-years-of-data/

[8] The efficacy of oral irrigation in addition to a toothbrush on plaque ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK76492/

[9] [10] [46] Efficacy of water flossing on clinical parameters of inflammation and plaque: A 4-week randomized controlled trial - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37753575/

[11] [32] [33] [35] [36] Comparison of the effect of two interdental cleaning devices around implants on the reduction of bleeding: a 30-day randomized clinical trial - PubMed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24568169/

[19] [21] [22] [23] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [48] Safety of a Water Flosser: A Literature Review | Compendium