Skip to main content

Experimental study determining the mechanical properties of dental floss holders

Clinical Oral Investigations volume 15, pages 417–425 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

This study determined the mechanical properties of 19 dental floss holders. Eight single-use holders and 11 reusable ones were tested. An in vitro model with dental proximal contact strength of 8 N was created. Every device had to pass the proximal contact 30 times. We measured (1) the displacement of the floss [mm], (2) the force [N] necessary to pass the proximal contact after the 30th passage, (3) the loosening of the floss (offset [mm]), and (4) the change in the distance between the branches [mm]. Each measurement was repeated seven times. The results are displacement of the floss after 30 passages, 2.0 to 9.2 mm; passage force, 2.6 to 11 N; increases in branch distance, 0–2.9 mm; offset of the floss, 0–1.8 mm (all numbers are medians). Based on cleaning a full dentition (30 passages), we suggest introducing minimal requirements of <4 mm for the displacement of the floss, ≥11 N for the force, and <0.1 mm for the difference in branch distance and the offset. Only two products fulfilled our criteria. The tests show that dental floss holders vary extremely in their mechanical properties. Their effective use seems often impossible due to limited mechanical properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Lindhe J, Koch G (1967) The effect of supervised oral hygiene on the gingiva of children. J Periodontal Res 2:215–220

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh MM, Heckman BL (1985) Interproximal subgingival cleaning by dental floss and the toothpick. Dent Hyg 10:464–467

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gjermo P, Flötra L (1970) The effect of different methods of interdental cleaning. J Periodontal Res 5:230–236

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mauriello SM, Bader JD, George MC, Klute PA (1987) Effectiveness of three interproximal cleaning devices. Clin Prev Dent 9:18–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Graves RC, Disney JA, Stamm JW (1989) Comparative effectiveness of flossing and brushing in reduction of interproximal bleeding. J Periodontol 60:243–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jackson MA, Kellett M, Worthington HV, Clerehugh V (2006) Comparison of interdental cleaning methods: a randomized controlled trial. J Periodontol 77:1421–1429

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tu YK, Jackson M, Kellett M, Clerehugh V (2008) Direct and indirect effects of interdental hygiene in a clinical trial. J Dent Res 87:1037–1042

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dörfer C (1995) Kontaktflächenpassage verschiedener handelsüblicher Zahnseiden in vitro. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 50:316–319

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kleber CJ, Putt MS (1988) Evaluation of a floss-holding device compared to hand-held floss for interproximal plaque, gingivitis, and patient acceptance. Clin Prev Dent 10:6–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hujoel PP, Cunha-Cruz J, Banting DW, Loesche WJ (2006) Dental flossing and interproximal caries: a systematic review. J Dent Res 85:298–305

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Slot DE, Husseini A, Van Der Weijden GA (2008) The efficacy of oral irrigation in addition to a toothbrush on plaque and the clinical parameters of periodontal inflammation: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg 6:304–314

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barton R, Diamond B (1980) Evaluation and patient acceptance of mechanical dental flossing device compared to hand-held floss. Clin Prev Dent 2:10–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Spolsky VW, Perry DA, Meng Z, Kissel P (1993) Evaluating the efficacy of new flossing aid. J Clin Periodontol 20:490–497

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shibly O, Ciancio SG, Shostad S, Mather M, Boardman TJ (2001) Clinical evaluation of an automatic flossing device vs. manual flossing. J Clin Dent 12:63–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cronin MJ, Dembling WZ, Cugini M, Thompson MC, Warren PR (2005) A 30-day clinical comparison of a novel interdental cleaning device and dental floss in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Dent 16:33–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kleber CJ, Putt MS (1990) Formation of flossing habit using a floss-holding device. J Dent Hyg 64:140–143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dörfer C, Staehle HJ (1990) Vergleich der gleitfähigkeit unterschiedlicher zahnseidetypen. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 49:945–947

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dörfer C, Wündrich D, Staehle HJ, Pioch T (2001) Gliding capacity of different dental flosses. J Periodontol 72:672–678

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wheeler RC (1940) Textbook of anatomy and physiology. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morrees CFA, Thompson SO, Jensen EY (1957) Mesiodistal crown diameters of the deciduous and permanent teeth in individuals. J Dent Res 36:39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lavelle CLB (1972) Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Am J Orthod 61:29–37

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jordan RE (1976) Tooth measurements. Mosby, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sterrett JD, Oliver T, Robinson F, Fortson W, Knaak B, Russell CM (1999) Width/length rations of normal clinical crowns of the maxillary anterior dentition in man. J Clin Periodontol 26:153–157

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moyers RE, Van Der Linden F, Riolo ML, McNamara JA (1976) Standards of human occlusal development. The University of Michigan, Ann Abour

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ash MM (1993) Wheeler’s dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Dr. Astrid Swenson of Darwin College, Cambridge University for proof reading the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltungskunde der Klinik für Mund-, Zahn und Kieferheilkunde, Zahn- und Kieferkrankheiten des Universitätsklinikums, Heidelberg, Germany

    Anna Wolff & Hans Jörg Staehle

  2. Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Informatik der Universität, Heidelberg, Germany

    Maria Pritsch

  3. Klinik für Zahnerhaltungskunde und Parodontologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany

    Christof Dörfer

  4. Department of Conservative Dentistry, University Hospital Heidelberg, INF 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Anna Wolff

Authors
  1. Anna Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Pritsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christof Dörfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans Jörg Staehle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Wolff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolff, A., Pritsch, M., Dörfer, C. et al. Experimental study determining the mechanical properties of dental floss holders. Clin Oral Invest 15, 417–425 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0399-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0399-5

Keywords

  • Dental floss holder
  • Interdental cleaning aid
  • Flossing aid
  • Flossing device
  • Floss