3 ms·

I met some dentists the other day that waterpicks may be doing more harm to gum density, while still helping get food particles out to avoid plaque building (wh

I met some dentists the other day that waterpicks may be doing more harm to gum density, while still helping get food particles out to avoid plaque building (which itself will do harm to gum density and cause other forms of decay) yeah well its not like my non-existent flossing habits will supplant my waterpick half-solution. But I do wonder the support for any of this wisdom.

BeetleB 7y ago
When I first discovered Waterpiks a year ago, I was extremely frustrated at the fact that all dentists hate it, and that there were very few studies on it. The universal belief, found all over the Internet, is that Waterpik is good for removing food particles, but is ineffective at removing the film, which regular floss does. This really should not be hard to validate. The only study I could find showing this was done in the late 70's. Waterpiks have changed a lot since then. And you'll find plenty of studies showing how effective Waterpiks are at removing that film. All these papers were funded by Waterpik. Why are dentists insisting Waterpiks are bad when there is no independent study comparing modern Waterpiks with regular floss? And why doesn't anyone do the damn study?
- nickjj 7y ago
  My dentist and his team of hygienists are big fans of waterpiks, but not as a substitution to anything. You would still brush and floss (with string) as usual. A waterpik used incorrectly may cause gum problems, so maybe that's why dentists don't like them across the board. If you put the thing on the highest setting and aim it so it pushes your gums up that may cause damage. But if you keep it at a low / medium setting (a lot of waterpiks go from 1 to 10 in terms of pressure) and aim the water straight at your teeth and trace your gums then you should be good (there's videos showing how to do it). Not only does it remove all sorts of food particles, but it also stimulates your gums.
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    >My dentist and his team of hygienists are big fans of waterpiks, but not as a substitution to anything. You would still brush and floss (with string) as usual. Same as mine. Well, sort of. They never recommend Waterpiks, but they all say "Cool! You use a Waterpik! I hope you're still flossing with string, though". >A waterpik used incorrectly may cause gum problem Evidence? Also, are there incorrect ways of using string floss that can cause dental problems? >If you put the thing on the highest setting and aim it so it pushes your gums up that may cause damage. "May" is not good enough. What is the evidence? There are plenty of people who use it at the full setting. It's not hard to study the topic. Of course, Waterpik muddles the issue because the highest setting differs from product to product - but when they publish their papers they specify a precise pressure, which is easy to measure. The other reason I ask: Their papers showing that Waterpiks are as good at removing film than string floss use fairly high settings. >But if you keep it at a low / medium setting (a lot of waterpiks go from 1 to 10 at 0.5 intervals in terms of pressure) and aim the water straight at your teeth and trace your gums then you should be good (there's videos showing how to do it). Not only does it remove all sorts of food particles, but it also stimulates your gums. If I do this, can you explain why I still need to use string floss? Do you have any studies showing that string floss is more effective than Waterpik when a Waterpik is used properly? I appreciate your willing to share the information you have heard/read, and please don't take this as an attack on you, but your comment is a classic example of what I'm complaining about. Lots of claims, but not pointing to a concrete study.
    - nickjj 7y ago
      > Evidence? None, other than asking my hygienist which setting I should personally use, and she told me don't go above 5. I trust her judgment so I left it at that. Also one of the waterpik tips (mine came with like 6 different tips) literally has a warning label that says "CAUTITION: Only use this tip on the lowest setting". It's a much sharper tip and for fun I put the waterpik on 10 with that tip and aimed it at my sink. The stream looked so powerful I'm surprised it didn't cut the Earth in half. I can't say for sure what would happen if I aimed that at my gums but I'm not trying. > Also, are there incorrect ways of using string floss that can cause dental problems? Yes absolutely. If you jam the floss into your gums as hard as you can sure I'm sure you'll be able to do damage. > "May" is not good enough. What is the evidence? There are plenty of people who use it at the full setting. I think it's because everyone is different. I know people who are 70+ and brush their teeth once a day, never floss, haven't visited a dentist in 20+ years and have little to no cavities and very little plaque build up. That's with smoking too. > If I do this, can you explain why I still need to use string floss? From personal experience the waterpik I have on setting 5 with the standard tip has a much different feel to it than string floss. String floss feels like it cleans the side edges of my teeth better where as the waterpik seems better for dislodging things that I have trouble getting out even with string floss. > Do you have any studies showing that string floss is more effective than Waterpik when a Waterpik is used properly? No, I'm not a medical doctor or dentist. I'm just a dude who brushes their teeth.

BeetleB 7y ago

When I first discovered Waterpiks a year ago, I was extremely frustrated at the fact that all dentists hate it, and that there were very few studies on it. The universal belief, found all over the Internet, is that Waterpik is good for removing food particles, but is ineffective at removing the film, which regular floss does. This really should not be hard to validate. The only study I could find showing this was done in the late 70's. Waterpiks have changed a lot since then. And you'll find plenty of studies showing how effective Waterpiks are at removing that film. All these papers were funded by Waterpik. Why are dentists insisting Waterpiks are bad when there is no independent study comparing modern Waterpiks with regular floss? And why doesn't anyone do the damn study?

nickjj 7y ago
My dentist and his team of hygienists are big fans of waterpiks, but not as a substitution to anything. You would still brush and floss (with string) as usual. A waterpik used incorrectly may cause gum problems, so maybe that's why dentists don't like them across the board. If you put the thing on the highest setting and aim it so it pushes your gums up that may cause damage. But if you keep it at a low / medium setting (a lot of waterpiks go from 1 to 10 in terms of pressure) and aim the water straight at your teeth and trace your gums then you should be good (there's videos showing how to do it). Not only does it remove all sorts of food particles, but it also stimulates your gums.
- BeetleB 7y ago
  >My dentist and his team of hygienists are big fans of waterpiks, but not as a substitution to anything. You would still brush and floss (with string) as usual. Same as mine. Well, sort of. They never recommend Waterpiks, but they all say "Cool! You use a Waterpik! I hope you're still flossing with string, though". >A waterpik used incorrectly may cause gum problem Evidence? Also, are there incorrect ways of using string floss that can cause dental problems? >If you put the thing on the highest setting and aim it so it pushes your gums up that may cause damage. "May" is not good enough. What is the evidence? There are plenty of people who use it at the full setting. It's not hard to study the topic. Of course, Waterpik muddles the issue because the highest setting differs from product to product - but when they publish their papers they specify a precise pressure, which is easy to measure. The other reason I ask: Their papers showing that Waterpiks are as good at removing film than string floss use fairly high settings. >But if you keep it at a low / medium setting (a lot of waterpiks go from 1 to 10 at 0.5 intervals in terms of pressure) and aim the water straight at your teeth and trace your gums then you should be good (there's videos showing how to do it). Not only does it remove all sorts of food particles, but it also stimulates your gums. If I do this, can you explain why I still need to use string floss? Do you have any studies showing that string floss is more effective than Waterpik when a Waterpik is used properly? I appreciate your willing to share the information you have heard/read, and please don't take this as an attack on you, but your comment is a classic example of what I'm complaining about. Lots of claims, but not pointing to a concrete study.
  - nickjj 7y ago
    > Evidence? None, other than asking my hygienist which setting I should personally use, and she told me don't go above 5. I trust her judgment so I left it at that. Also one of the waterpik tips (mine came with like 6 different tips) literally has a warning label that says "CAUTITION: Only use this tip on the lowest setting". It's a much sharper tip and for fun I put the waterpik on 10 with that tip and aimed it at my sink. The stream looked so powerful I'm surprised it didn't cut the Earth in half. I can't say for sure what would happen if I aimed that at my gums but I'm not trying. > Also, are there incorrect ways of using string floss that can cause dental problems? Yes absolutely. If you jam the floss into your gums as hard as you can sure I'm sure you'll be able to do damage. > "May" is not good enough. What is the evidence? There are plenty of people who use it at the full setting. I think it's because everyone is different. I know people who are 70+ and brush their teeth once a day, never floss, haven't visited a dentist in 20+ years and have little to no cavities and very little plaque build up. That's with smoking too. > If I do this, can you explain why I still need to use string floss? From personal experience the waterpik I have on setting 5 with the standard tip has a much different feel to it than string floss. String floss feels like it cleans the side edges of my teeth better where as the waterpik seems better for dislodging things that I have trouble getting out even with string floss. > Do you have any studies showing that string floss is more effective than Waterpik when a Waterpik is used properly? No, I'm not a medical doctor or dentist. I'm just a dude who brushes their teeth.