The Waterpik® Water Flosser: Significantly More Effective than Interdental Brushes for Improving Gingival Health
Comparison of Water Flosser and Interdental Brush on Reduction of Gingival Bleeding and Plaque: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.
Goyal CR, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, Schuller R. J Clin Dent 2016; 27: 61-65.
Gingival Bleeding Reduction: 56% more effective
Gingival Bleeding Reduction: 53% more effective
To determine the efficacy of a Waterpik®Water Flosser vs. interdental brushes for plaque and gingivitis reduction.
Twenty-eight subjects completed this 2-week study. Subjects were assigned to one of two groups; Waterpik® Water Flosser (WF) plus a manual toothbrush or interdental brushes (IDBs) plus a manual toothbrush. Gingival health was evaluated by measuring bleeding on probing (BOP) at six sites per tooth. Plaque removal was measured using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI).
The Waterpik® Water Flosser was significantly more effective than the interdental brushes for reducing gingival bleeding. Notably, the Water Flosser was 56% more effective for reducing whole mouth bleeding, and 53% more effective for reducing whole mouth approximal bleeding.
The Waterpik®Water Flosser is significantly more effective than interdental brushes for improving gingival health.
The Evolution of Flossing
Plaque Removal – whole mouth
Plaque Removal – approximal
To determine the efficacy of a Waterpik®Water Flosser vs. interdental brushes for plaque removal.
Twenty-eight (28) subjects completed this one-time use study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Waterpik® Water Flosser (WF) plus manual tooth brushing or interdental brushes (IDB) plus manual tooth brushing. Plaque scores were obtained using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects were instructed on the use of their interdental product. Post-cleaning scores were obtained after a supervised brushing and use of the interdental device. Scores were recorded for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual regions for each subject.
The WF group was significantly more effective than the IDB group for removing plaque from all areas measured. Specifically, the WF was 18% more effective for whole mouth and marginal areas, 20% for approximal areas, 11% for facial areas, and 29% for lingual areas.
The Waterpik® Water Flosser and manual toothbrush removes significantly more plaque from tooth surfaces than interdental brushes and a manual toothbrush after a single use.