Efficacy of an automated flossing device in different regions of the mouth

Manual floss is often difficult to use, particularly in hard to reach posterior teeth. Many prefer automated flossers because of their ease of use. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of an automated flosser to manual floss for anterior, premolar, and molar teeth using the plaque index (PI) and gingival (GI) index.

A 10-week, two-treatment period, crossover design was used. The subjects were randomly assigned to control (C), manual (M), or automated (A) groups. The PI and GI were measured interdentally at baseline and days 15 and 30. Treatment subjects were assigned to the opposite group at the second baseline visit after a 2-week washout period. Subjects brushed twice a day. Treatment subjects used their respective floss once per day. Subjects refrained from oral hygiene 24 hours before study visits. The PI was measured pre- and postintervention on days 15 and 30. Mixed-effect analysis of covariance crossover models were used to test group effects at days 15 and 30 from both periods with the corresponding mean preintervention and baseline score as covariates for PI and GI, respectively. Within-subject treatment comparisons were made, and carryover effects were evaluated.

The majority of subjects (N = 102) were students (mean age, 23.3 +/- 5.0 [SD] years) with minimal gingivitis at baseline. At days 15 and 30, the M group had more plaque than the A group for all regions (P < or = 0.008), and the C group had more plaque than the A (P <0.001) and M groups (P < or = 0.021) for all regions. No regional treatment effect was observed for the GI. Within-subject analyses were more favorable for the A group than the M group. No significant carryover effect was observed.

The automated flossing device removed significantly more interproximal plaque in molar, premolar, and anterior teeth compared to manual floss at days 15 and 30. There was no significant difference in interdental inflammation between groups.