Talk:Dental floss

.

Spam?

SPAM In The NONOBJECTIVE PHOTO showing J&J's well known "Reach" "Access" brand of Floss Holder (WHEN ALSO the well known "J&J" FLOSS itself is indeed LISTED under BRANDED flosses) does indeed appear to demonstrate a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and therefore THE holder phto and associated text are indeed SPAM!== 02:17, 29 November 2006 SoLongBaby (Talk | contribs) (→SPAM -Reverted Because Photo is an Ad which is Spam as is associated text!)

No one sees it as spam. Please point out what secion of WP:SPAM is in violation. --Ronz 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't even addressing why the text is spam. Please do so if you want to convince anyone. --Ronz 02:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it a conflict of interest? I have seen no evidence that the uploader, nor the editors who want to keep the image, would personally benefit from the image. And the brand cannot be discerned from either the photo itself nor the caption. Should Wikipedia remove all images of commercial products? --Ginkgo100 ^talk 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Photo of VISUAL Advertising Spam of A floss-holder-PRODUCT Made by a WELL KNOWN & listed "Floss Manufacturer ; and reverted Associated text 18:49, 21 December 2006 SoLongBaby

"Visual advertising spam" is not an agreed upon reason to remove an image. Please point out wiki policy or guideline that supports your position. The text doesn't mention any product, so there's no reason for it's removal (and you've not given one). If there is something specific in the text, please explain what it is so it can be discussed. --Ronz 16:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLOngBaby, cease your constant reversions on this image and text...the image is not identifying as to who the manufactorer is so I can see no big deal on this matter...it definitely is not spam or advertising to have the image.--MONGO 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLongBaby: "DENTAL FLOSS is just that, but a floss holder is NOT dental floss per se. Therefore, a floss holder photo probably would be better off on another page called a STUB whether or not it is advertsing/SPAM. Floss is floss and a holder is a holder." .--SoLongBaby 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, consensus is that it stays here. When there is enough information on it to be separated into another article, it can be done then. --Ronz 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible refs for holders etc

The Canadian Dental Association and the American Dental Association both recommend use of dental tape or a floss holder to make flossing easier [1] [2] [3]. --Ronz 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"To make flossing easier, try using a plastic floss holder or use dental tape." [4] --Ronz 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"If flossing feels awkward or if your fingers always seem to get tangled, try using a plastic floss holder..." [5]

"If you find it difficult to manipulate long strands of floss, consider using a special floss holder." "People who have trouble handling dental floss may find it easier to use interdental cleaners." [6]

"If you find it difficult to manipulate long strands of floss, consider using a special floss holder." [7]

"Children who do their own flossing may find that a floss holder makes the task easier—and for parents who are helping, a holder can diminish the risk being bitten by those clean little chompers." [8] --Ronz 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

USE

Deleted last two sentences that cannot be verified and appear to be unreliable information. --WhyNot1 22:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the state of the article, I think this is a bit premature. --Ronz 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain how it's unreliable, it's common sense that vibration better penetrates the gumline, it operates under the same principles as an electric toothbrush. The part you removed was worded to explain why this was. It doesn't require verification if it's a logical statement. I'm restoring it. Btw, get a user page. Tyciol 13:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Causes of reduced bleeding with regular flossing

One cause that is accepted is that due to the cleaning of bacterial collections, the gums do not become enflamed, and therefore more prone to bleeding. Isn't it reasonable that toughening of the gum tissue due to stress from floss, and the healing of lacerations, might have something to do with it? Our skin builds calluses, and many other tissues of the body toughen in response to stress. Tyciol 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dental floss

Dental floss should always be merely gently inserted between teeth, and gently below the gum line which is known as the gingival margin. Never jam floss between teeth. Typically floss is availbale flavored or plain, that is, unflavored. Floss comes waxed or unwaxed. --WhyNot1 2:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Dental floss is merely either a bundle of thin nylon filaments or a plastic made of "Teflon" ePTFE or UHMWPE polyethylene ribbon used to remove particles of food from between teeth and dento-bacterial plaque which daily grows on and is adhered to teeth surfaces. That is why everyone must brush and floss daily. --WhyNot1 2:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Dental floss is typically available flavored or unflavored whether or not waxed or unwaxed. Flavors include mint, cinnimon and bubble gum. --WhyNot1 2:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pubic Hair?

Should we mention in the middle ages long pubic hair was often used by people as far back as the 14^th Century for floss?--Wiggstar69 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Source to cite? Why would it be pubic hair specifically? Why not long hair from the head, or from a horse's tail/mane? Was this just an odd joke? — ¾-10 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Directions

"Dental floss does not clean the interproximal areas beneath the contact point, because the area is concave." Huh? Is the "contact point" where the upper and lower teeth come together, or where a tooth comes close to the tooth in front or behind? And what is an "interproximal area"? Maybe a drawing would help. Mcswell (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

I removed the popular culture section. It contained only two items. One in-passing reference from Doctor Who, and a reference to Montana (Frank Zappa song), that deals with growing dental floss on a farm, not with floss and flossing as such. Dr bab 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds consistent with WP:TRIVIA to me. Good work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bonafide Hygienist?

Removed IMAGE because NO bonafide hygienist wears such loose latex gloves. The latex gloves must be fit tight and every credentialed hygienist knows THAT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by THeHygienist (talk • contribs) 00:52, 17 May 2007

I've restored the image, since this article is about dental floss, rather than hygienists or gloves. --Ronz 01:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about disposable flossing things?

I think a section could be added. I think they are convenient for work.

Clandestine floss party

What's up with that picture? Is it from a hazing ritual? Why are the lights off? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dental Tape

Maybe there should be some mention dental tape as well. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Flossing before brushing

The article states that the ADA recommends flossing after brushing, but the ADA seems to specifically suggest that it is better to floss before brushing per http://www.ada.org/ada/seal/floss.asp . I apologize for any formatting errors I may have made in creating this entry. -B.Stewart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.6.33.247 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to look into this issue, since I was always taught by my dentists (when I first began flossing in the late 1970s) that flossing came *after* brushing, and for good reason: brushing can push food particles into the crevices between teeth.

The reasoning cited for flossing first -- so that brushing can push fluoride toothpaste into those same crevices without its being removed by flossing -- seems seriously irrational: Fluoride is a poison, and to leave it in one's mouth where it is likely to be swallowed seems to be very poor advice.

I will check this question out with the ADA et al. and report back.Daqu (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Research and Science

Where is it? 121.209.148.194 (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's no evidence here that flossing does anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.4.150 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

here´s the proof that flossing doesn´t seem to be effective. Hujoel P.P, Cunha-Cruz J., Banting D.W., Loesche W.J.: Dental Flossing and Interproximal Caries: a Systematic Review. Journal of Dental Research 85, 4, 2006, page 298-30

Our aim was to assess, systematically, the effect of flossing on interproximal caries risk. Six trials involving 808 subjects, ages 4 to 13 years, were identified. There were significant study-to-study differences and a moderate to large potential for bias. Professional flossing performed on school days for 1.7 years on predominantly primary teeth in children was associated with a 40% caries risk reduction (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.76; p-value, < 0.001). Both three-monthly professional flossing for 3 years (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–1.19; p-value, 0.32) and self-performed flossing in young adolescents for 2 years (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.20; p-value, 0.93) did not reduce caries risk . No flossing trials in adults or under unsupervised conditions could be identified. Professional flossing in children with low fluoride exposures is highly effective in reducing interproximal caries risk. These findings should be extrapolated to more typical floss-users with care, since self-flossing has failed to show an effect.

I´m a non-native english speaker, so if one of you native english speaker would like to add this peace of information to the article , I´d be very gratefull. --dental cleaning ([[User talk:dental cleaning|talk]]) 11:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That doesnt say that flossing is not effective. It appears to say that flossing is effective in reducing caries only in certain circumstances.

As the article already documents, flossing is effective for the reduction of gum diseases. The sourced review states, "None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects." --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

and what´s this summary then?

....." These findings should be extrapolated to more typical floss-users with care, since self-flossing has failed to show an effect." --[https://www.dental-office.org/2018/10/a-good-dental-cleaning.html dental cleaning] ([[User talk:dental cleaning|talk]]) 06:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The context is the effectiveness of flossing on the reduction of caries. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

your right. It´s only about caries. Yet, I wouldn´t have a problem if the context (in which the ineffectiveness occures) is mentioned. It´s not my goal to totally discredit dental flossing. I just would like to make sure all relevant information about dental flossing is on the table. --dental cleaning ([[User talk:dental cleaning|talk]]) 13:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

One more study from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138178

Abstract OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this study was to assess systematically the adjunctive effect of both flossing and toothbrushing versus toothbrushing alone on plaque and gingivitis.
MATERIALS:

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched through December 2007 to identify appropriate studies. The variables of plaque and gingivitis were selected as outcomes. RESULTS:

Independent screening of titles and abstracts of 1166 MEDLINE-Pubmed and 187 Cochrane papers resulted in 11 publications that met the eligibility criteria. Mean values and SD were collected by data extraction. Descriptive comparisons are presented for brushing alone or brushing and flossing. A greater part of the studies did not show a benefit for floss on plaque and clinical parameters of gingivitis. A meta-analysis was performed for the plaque index and gingival index.

CONCLUSIONS The dental professional should determine, on an individual patient basis, whether high-quality flossing is an achievable goal. In light of the results of this comprehensive literature search and critical analysis, it is concluded that a routine instruction to use floss is not supported by scientific evidence. --dental cleaning ([[User talk:dental cleaning|talk]]) 10:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I´ve found 2 links that review the above studies in the well-respected Nature magazin. I´d say that this would make the studies credible. --dental cleaning ([[User talk:dental cleaning|talk]]) 11:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/v7/n3/full/6400425a.html
http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/v10/n3/abs/6400666a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by dental cleaning ([[User talk:dental cleaning|talk]] • contribs) 11:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I would have the following suggestion. I would insert a new paragraph in the main article and call it "Effectiveness", just like there is an effectiveness paragraph in the Wikipedia article scaling and root planing.

Effectiveness
The general consensus amongst dentists is that dental flossing is highly effective in removing plague from the teeth. There are however some scientific studies that were published in the British science magazine Nature which found that flossing is effective only in certain situations. One study concluded (Institute name?): “Professional flossing in children with low fluoride exposures is highly effective in reducing interproximal caries risk. These findings should be extrapolated to more typical floss-users with care, since self-flossing has failed to show an effect in regards to reducing caries.” Another study (institute name?) “The dental professional should determine, on an individual patient basis, whether high-quality flossing is an achievable goal. In light of the results of this comprehensive literature search and critical analysis, it is concluded that a routine instruction to use floss is not supported by scientific evidence” — Preceding unsigned comment added by dental cleaning (talk • [[Special:Contributions/dental cleaning|contribs]]) 12:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Benefits References

The benefits section references reference 4. However reference 4 does not in anyway back up the statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.4.150 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The source says, in part: "Plaque ... can cause the enamel to weaken, eventually causing tooth decay. ... Plaque that is not removed with thorough daily brushing and cleaning between teeth can eventually harden into calculus or tartar."

Thus: cleaning between teeth (flossing) removes plaque, which otherwise can cause tooth decay (dental caries). Maybe something a bit more direct would do the job? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added additional refs to back up all of the benefits listed. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The link is dead. I´d probably remove it if nobody else does it or provides a replacement. --Bhuddu2 (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is something wrong with the source itself, we do not (usually) remove sources due to dead links. Instead, please tag the dead link ({{dl}}) or replace it with an archived version (often available at archive.org). Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I´ve fixed the dead link --Bhuddu2 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Life expectancy

"Flossing regularly can add up to six years to your life expectancy"

I've been trying to find a solid, WP:MEDRS source for this. So far I've found a few gerontologists making the claim, though the number of years differs. I've also found a study linking flossing to general health awareness.

I'd like the tagged material to remain a few days more to alert others of the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a bit of a search through the medical journals to try and find the link between flossing and life expectancy, and I think I've figured out where it has come from. While there are loads of web 'health' sites that make the claim, the main medical evidence that probably created this is realated to periodonatal / gum disease. There have been a few studies which have found links between periodontal disease and heart problems. The reasons for this are unclear and whether or not its causal (As in - does gum disease cause cardiac problems? or are people who take care of their mouths less also likely to look after their health? - this is where your link to health awareness comes in). It could be worth mentioning that good oral hygiene is related to fewer cardio issues, but I dont think its appropriate to put in terms of life expectancy. The reason I was swift to cut the text out originally is that medical studies rarely if ever put things in terms of life expectancy gain - its more likely to be x% less heart attacks over a x years. Also 6 years is quite huge in terms of life expectancy so it didnt seem realistic. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Link: New Study Confirms Periodontal Disease Linked to Heart Disease

We have a brief mention of heart disease in the same sentence, though I've not checked the source.

The study I found about health awareness is: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118621928/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have have the connections to health / cardio included, it was more the wording of the unambiguous causal life expectancy extension that I thought was a bit iffy. It just needs a few words changed to be good. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The unreferenced assertion in this article that flossing increases life expectancy either needs to be referenced or removed. Such an extraordinary claim that a tooth cleaning method can increase life expectancy (notwithstanding the protection it affords against gum disease and heart disease, which are already mentioned) surely cannot be made without giving some kind of evidence. If there is a paper verifying this claim then, of course, reinsert this statement, but until someone gives a reliable source, I think it's best left out of the article. As such have removed this claim. Please note that a reference for this claim would have to be from a solid source such as a peer-reviewed paper. Unnachamois (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mustache picture

Why do we have a picture of a man with a mustache getting his teeth flossed? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It shows how dental floss, the subject of this article, is used. Is there something about the mustache, in particular, that you object to? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wateropik etc

I just wandered on this page. Shouldn't there be a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_irrigator? BartYgor (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Too U.S. centric?

Flossing is a constant theme in the U.S., but appears to be far rarer and less often recommended in e.g. Europe. I suggest that a wider perspective is taken with regard to geography and habits. In addition, the difference in recommendations could imply that the net benefits of flossing are smaller than portrayed in the article. If so, a more nuanced view should be given.80.226.24.12 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Would need reliable sources to support such claims about Europeans flossing less than Americans. I have in the mean time made slight adjustments to the article to give a world wide perspective. Re the benefits of flossing being smaller than are portrayed in the article, if you would care to check the references, there is a Cochrane group systematic review which sets the tone for the article: Lesion 17:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It would need reliable sources to support an *implied* claim that Europeans floss as much as people in the US. This 50-year-old German Wikipedian has a) flossed once or twice out of curiousity and b) *NEVER* had a dentist recommend it or ask whether I floss. Because it's virtually unknown. I know about flossing pretty much exclusively due to the 'net and US "cultural artifacts" (i.e. movies). --jae (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

“ There is weak evidence that flossing plus toothbrushing may help to reduce plaque buildup relative to toothbrushing alone.[1] ”

Your personal experience is not a reliable source, neither has anyone presented a reliable source either way. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

History

I know I have read scientific articles that found paleolithic era humans used grass to floss their teeth (determined by comparing the microscopic wear with experiments on modern teeth caused by the silicon in grass leaves). I know, also, from personal experience that tribal peoples will use leaves and grass still to floss their teeth. I can't find sources on this now though, but I think it should be incorperated if someone can find sources.--Aionlux (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076852 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.1330740311 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Urszula-Ratajczak-Skrzatek/publication/346916262_Quaternary_Stratigraphy_-_palaeoenvironment_sediments_palaeofauna_and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002817790110111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.83.185.35 (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Making the "Dental Floss" wikipedia page more evidence based

Hello, I am User:EviDent.Prac, an oral health student attending LaTrobe University, Bendigo, Australia. Myself, along with fellow colleagues User:Yyuliya, User:CB17742881, User:eyoel07 and User:Ramiabouzeid have been assigned to edit the Dental Floss wikipedia page. As wikipedia is a fast, convenient and free resource, our aim is to ensure our patients are accessing credible and verifiable information in regards to dental issues they may present with. This will allow for a more accurate useful resource. Throughout viewing this page, as a group we have discussed certain aspects of dental floss that we would like to review and introduce into the page. These include; Limitations of Floss, Flossing Technique, and Types of Floss, as well as performing an overall edit of current information, making it more credible. EviDent.Prac (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Types of Dental Floss

New addition to the contents of the Dental Floss page titled 'Types of Dental Floss'. This section outlines commonly available floss, the effectiveness according to the material characteristic and floss selection. Previous work under 'Use' has been moved under this new section and modified so that it could be incorporated into the new paragraph.CB17742881 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

CB17742881, please remember to support your additions with citations. It's especially important that we properly reference medical claims like "Studies have shown that there is no difference in the effectiveness of the type of floss used by individuals." KateWishing (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

KateWishing, references have been added and further adjustments made to content CB17742881 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You should also add the page numbers for the Dental Hygiene: Theory and Practice citations, considering it's a 1296-page book. KateWishing (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Use

I've just added instruction of how to use floss. This describes in detail of how to use it effectively, aswell additional references. Yyuliya (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have recently tried to upload a few pictures with the instructions of floss via using wikimedia commons however they have been removed. Could anyone shed some light please was to why? or how to upload pictures? much appreciated :) Yyuliya (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't legally use the images unless you personally own the copyright or have obtained appropriate permissions from the copyright holder. Images must be available under a free license -- one with no restrictions on image reuse. See Commons:Licensing. (There are exceptions for fair use, but they do not apply here.) KateWishing (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Yyuliya (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

See also

Just added links of other aids and tools that will remove plaque Yyuliya (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Help edit table!

The table below outlines the characteristics of common types of interdental non-powered self-care products of floss available. Please have a look through if it need any more further editing. Thanks guys !

Interdental Nonpowered Self-Care Products	Description	Indications	Contraindications and limitations	Common problems experienced during misuse of product	The number of times it can be used/duration of use
Waxed floss	Traditional string floss, Nylon waxed Monofilament floss also available coated in polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), Does not fray	Type I embrasures, Floss cleans between the gum and tooth	Type II and III embrasures	Floss cuts, Floss clefts, Circulation to fingers may cut off from wrapping floss too tight, Inability to reach back teeth due to manual dexterity problems	One time use. Dispose after use
Unwaxed floss	Traditional string floss, Unwaxed, multifilaments	Type I embrasures, Floss cleans between the gum and tooth	Type II and III embrasures	See waxed floss	One time use. Dispose after use
Dental tape	Waxed floss that has a wider and flatter design to conventional floss	Type I embrasures, Floss cleans between the gum and tooth that may have large tooth surface area	Type II and III embrasures	See waxed floss	One time use. Dispose after use
Tufted/braided dental floss/ Superfloss	Regular diameter floss, wider tufted portion looks like yarn. Tip of product also resembles a threader	Type II and III embrasures. Under pontics of fixed partial dentures	Type I embrasures	Trauma from forcing threader into tissues. Yarnlike portion/fibers may catch on appliances or dental work (which may cause gum irritation/problem)	One time use. Dispose after use
Floss holder	Handle with two prongs in Y or C Shape	Type I embrasures. Recommended for individuals that lack manual dexterity , who are physically challenged, or who have a strong gag reflex. Floss holders may assist caregivers	Type II and III embrasures	Unable to maintain tension of floss against tooth and fully wrap around tooth side. Need to set a fulcrum/finger rest (e.g. cheek, chin) to avoid trauma to gums and floss cuts	Can be used a number of times, however floss is to be changed after each use
Floss threader	A nylon loop designed to resemble a needle with large opening to thread floss. Tip of floss threader inserted and pulled through the space between two teeth to allow cleaning of the teeth sides	Type I embrasures: tight contacts between teeth, floss between and under abutment teeth and pontics of fixed prosthesis (e.g. fixed bridges and dental implants), under orthodontic appliances such as wires and lingual bar, under bars for implants	Type II and III embrasures	Trauma to gums from flossing threader into tissues	Can be used a number of times, however floss is to be changed after each use

CB17742881 (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Yyuliya (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice looking table but it will need supporting WP:MEDRS-compliant references to support the accuracy of these descriptions. If you can provide those in the correct way & place, I think this will be a nice addition to the article. Also, does the phrase "floss cuts" mean cuts in the gum from using floss to aggressively? If so, we need to define that in the article somewhere or use terminology lay readers will easily understand (i.e., what are embrasures?). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The table is looking really good. Additional information will be added into the empty cells, along with the reference within the table description once it is uploaded. EviDent.Prac (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also another table below outlines the characteristics of common types of interdental powered self-care products of floss available.

Interdental Powered Self-Care Products	Description	Indications	Contraindications and limitations	Common problems experienced during misuse of product
Power flossers	Bow type tip and Single filament nylon tip	Type I embrasures: Individuals with physical challenges. Individuals that cannot master traditional string floss. Individual preference.	Type II and III embrasures. Tight contacts between teeth or crowded teeth	Floss cuts or clefts with floss holder designs. Unable to maintain tension or wrap floss completely around tooth side.

(talk) Yyuliya (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The table is now uploaded to article by EviDent.Prac Yyuliya (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the references to the Darby textbook still require page numbers. I also removed the dental embrasures image because it appears to be a copyright violation -- see my comment in #Use_2. KateWishing (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Recommended Flossing Technique Wording Changes Needed

Hi all, the language used for this section of the article has to be changed because the way it's currently written is in an instructional/how-to manner and that goes against Wikipedia policy. Instead, it should be rephrased to simply state that these are the recommended steps but there should be no second person language or commands (i.e., where it says repeat step 6). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823 I have attended to this issue on the 20th of April. I hope that it is within Wikipedia policy now as the information provided now is no longer in step-by-step format and is at an easy to read recommended use of dental floss EviDent.Prac (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers needed

CB17742881, Yyuliya, EviDent.Prac, and Ramiabouzeid, thank you for your contributions to the article. You added eight references to the textbook Dental Hygiene Theory and Practice, which still require page numbers. Once we have page numbers, we can remove the citations-needed template at the top. KateWishing (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

KateWishing sure no problem, I'll do them now. Yyuliya (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Benefits

Added information about its use with orthodontic appliances, to link in with floss threader etc.Eyoel07 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Article out of date – no longer state of art

I am afraid that most of the article needs to go in the bin – flossing is no longer recommended, and when it is, it is as an alternative to interdental brushes. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/02/dental-floss-proof-works-guidelines-dropped Littledogboy (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, nobody should be flossing their teeth. 2600:1700:1DC0:8CC0:C2CB:38FF:FE11:20F8 (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The interpretation of scientific sources by mainstream media is often problematic. The scientific source can be over-simplified to make a better story, to make things understandable for readers, or perhaps just because of lack of understanding on the part of journalist. A great many Cochrane reviews about different topics find lack of evidence of efficacy due to widespread flaws in study design, but this needs to be clearely distinguished from evidence of a lack of efficacy. That is to say, not knowing if something is positive or negative due to lack of research or poor quality research is entirely different from knowing if something is negative due to the findings of good quality research that found it to be negative. Some have termed media interest in this topic "flossgate".[9] However it is not as simple to state that it is no longer reccommended. See this advice from BSP [10]: "Daily cleaning between your teeth using special interdental brushes is essential for treating and preventing gum disease. Floss is of little value unless the spaces between your teeth are too tight for the interdental brushes to fit without hurting or causing harm.” Therefore, floss is not a waste of time - it is a viable alternative to interdental brushing where appropriate. " Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't fit any brush between my teeth, so I use floss. I don't understand where all this hate from dental floss has come from, all of a sudden. For what reason should I *NOT* be flossing? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A Study from April 2020, "Flossing Is Associated with Improved Oral Health in Older Adults" from the International Dental Association found significantly less oral disease in flossers then non-flossers. I'll summarise the findings in the efficacy section when I have a chance.Permareperterra (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

References

New Types of Floss

Please someone discuss the new plastic-free dental floss market which uses waxed silk or a kind of waxed floss made of maize (is it a maize-based plastic or the natural fibres?). Sometimes these products are black with charcoal. It's an interesting topic.

One of the websites selling these new types of floss claims that it's better than nylon. Review their claim, please. It's this one: https://www.wearthlondon.com/plastic-free-dental-floss Moses Alkadhem (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)