{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01772816808929744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004596191726854892, 'mean_word_length': 4.976470588235294, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gliding capacity of different dental flosses.

BACKGROUND
One of the major concerns with the use of dental floss is the passage of the proximal contact, which might be influenced by the material characteristics of the floss. The aim of this study was to compare the gliding capacities of different flosses with major differences in structure and experimental behavior in vivo.


METHODS
In a clinical, single-blind, crossover study of 27 subjects, the forces necessary for passing all 14 proximal contacts between the first premolars were measured using 2 polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based flosses, 2 nylon-based flosses, and 1 nylon-based tape. The flosses were fixed in a special holder with strain gauges, which allowed registration of the maximum forces at insertion into and removal from the interdental area.


RESULTS
In most contacts, the PTFE flosses needed less force compared to the nylon flosses. The range between the flosses was higher in the mandible compared to the maxilla and increased from the mesially located contacts to the more distally located contacts. The nylon tape required higher forces at insertion for all maxillary contacts. All other flosses proved to be equivalent at these contacts.


CONCLUSIONS
PTFE flosses are superior to nylon flosses in terms of passing stronger proximal contacts in both directions. Due to gliding differences between different types of floss, the selection of a floss has the potential of compensating intra- and interindividual variation in contact strengths.