Practice Implications

The Pucher et al. study made an additional interesting point. The dental students, who were previous manual flossers, preferred hand flossing while the clients in SPT, who were older, preferred the automated device.36 This preference by these clients for an alternative to manual flossing concurred with other studies that compared manual flossing to nonmechanized but alternative interdental devices.39-42

These few studies seem to demonstrate emerging evidence that for non or inconsistent flossers, automated devices are appropriate, can improve oral hygiene, and potentially compliance.32,-34,36-38 The only exception was the study by Schmage et al., in which the professional used the devices rather than implementation by the client themselves.35 Because of this, no real conclusions can be drawn as to efficacy in the home care setting. Therefore, for non or irregular flossers, the automated device is not only an alternative to manual flossing, it is a mechanism to increase compliance. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest the device could achieve superior results in clients who are regular, manual flossers.