Can Different Dental Flosses Influence The Perception Of Interproximal-Contact Tightness?

Objective: To investigate the influence of different dental flosses on the tightness of interproximal contacts in posterior teeth irrespective of the examiners.  

Method: A mandibular partial posterior teeth typodont with ideal interproximal contacts was used. Twelve examiners (dental school faculty and undergraduate D.M.D. students) evaluated interproximal contacts of the mandibular teeth typodont. Five waxed dental flosses (Dr. Ken’s Floss & Go, G-U-M Eez-thru, Oral-B Satin Floss, Crest Glide Floss, and Johnson & Johnson Reach Waxed) and one unwaxed dental flosses (POH) were evaluated. Interproximal contact tightness was assigned into five scores according to: no contact, light, ideal, tight, and too tight contact. The data were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon Tests (α=.05).

Result: No statistical differences were observed for perception of interproximal contact tightness between the two groups of examiners. Statistically significant differences were found among dental flosses (P<.0001). Scores in percentage of each dental floss tested were:

Dental Floss	No Contact		Light		Ideal		Tight		Too Tight
	Fac	St	Fac	St	Fac	St	Fac	St	Fac	St.
Dr. Ken’s Floss & Go	0	0	3	3	80	70	17	27	0	0
G-U-M Eez-thru	0	0	0	3	33	20	53	50	13	27
POH	0	0	63	77	37	23	0	0	0	0
Oral-B Satin Floss	0	0	47	30	47	67	7	3	0	0
Crest Glide	0	0	13	17	67	73	20	10	0	0
Johnson & Johnson Reach	0	0	13	7	73	80	13	13	0	0

Fac: Faculty/St: Students.

Johnson & Johnson Reach and Dr. Ken’s Floss & Go dental floss were adequate to evaluate interproximal contact tightness, whereas G-U-M Eez-thru was found not satisfactory to check interproximal contact tightness.

Conclusion: This study shows that the degree of tightness of posterior interproximal contacts is dependent on the dental floss used.