> ..The Phillips AirFloss ($90) knocks plaque off teeth in what company
> project manager Wolter Benning calls a 'disruption event.' "The
> collision is like a series of train cars," Benning says.  "When a
> high-speed droplet impacts wet plaque film, it creates a shock wave.
> Pressure builds up to mechanically disrupt the film."  Once the plaque
> is loose, water flushes it out...

>    The article goes on to describe in a 4-part illustration what goes on
> in a single 500-millisecond shot.
>    What are you professionals' opinion on this device -- or is it new
> enough that there is not much or any consensus regarding it yet?
>    I still would like to  be able to find something to use in place of
> flossing, which I find difficult/ or almost impossible.  It seems like
> with all their technology etc there would be something like that --
> maybe this is it?  Sounds like it uses air, whereas the water pik was
> just a jet of water.

> > ? ?Re: the recent posts/replies in here from a few months back "(Water
> > pik a viable alternative to flossing?)"
> > My latest issue (2/12) of Popular Mechanics has an article entitled
> > "Plaque Blaster." ?Is this really that dis-similar than a conventional
> > water pic -- or is it indeed better?
> > ? From the article:

> > ..The Phillips AirFloss ($90) knocks plaque off teeth in what company
> > project manager Wolter Benning calls a 'disruption event.' "The
> > collision is like a series of train cars," Benning says. ?"When a
> > high-speed droplet impacts wet plaque film, it creates a shock wave.
> > Pressure builds up to mechanically disrupt the film." ?Once the plaque
> > is loose, water flushes it out...

> > ? ?The article goes on to describe in a 4-part illustration what goes on
> > in a single 500-millisecond shot.
> > ? ?What are you professionals' opinion on this device -- or is it new
> > enough that there is not much or any consensus regarding it yet?
> > ? ?I still would like to ?be able to find something to use in place of
> > flossing, which I find difficult/ or almost impossible. ?It seems like
> > with all their technology etc there would be something like that --
> > maybe this is it? ?Sounds like it uses air, whereas the water pik was
> > just a jet of water.

> ? ? ? ? It used to be a device or invention was invented, tested, and if it
> worked someone who believed in it took it into production. ?Now it seems
> someone gets a whiz-bang idea that sounds somewhat plausible, produces
> and promotes it, and hopes to make a quick killing.
> ? ? ? ? Sorry to be a buzz kill, but I've gotten pretty cynical about things
> like this. ?I've heard nothing, seen no research. ?It may be there, but
> if there was really something out there with a realistic chance of
> replacing dental floss, I think I would have heard.
> ? ? ? ? Hope to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

> Steve-

>>>     Re: the recent posts/replies in here from a few months back "(Water
>>> pik a viable alternative to flossing?)"
>>> My latest issue (2/12) of Popular Mechanics has an article entitled
>>> "Plaque Blaster."  Is this really that dis-similar than a conventional
>>> water pic -- or is it indeed better?
>>>    From the article:

>>> ..The Phillips AirFloss ($90) knocks plaque off teeth in what company
>>> project manager Wolter Benning calls a 'disruption event.' "The
>>> collision is like a series of train cars," Benning says.  "When a
>>> high-speed droplet impacts wet plaque film, it creates a shock wave.
>>> Pressure builds up to mechanically disrupt the film."  Once the plaque
>>> is loose, water flushes it out...

>>>     The article goes on to describe in a 4-part illustration what goes on
>>> in a single 500-millisecond shot.
>>>     What are you professionals' opinion on this device -- or is it new
>>> enough that there is not much or any consensus regarding it yet?
>>>     I still would like to  be able to find something to use in place of
>>> flossing, which I find difficult/ or almost impossible.  It seems like
>>> with all their technology etc there would be something like that --
>>> maybe this is it?  Sounds like it uses air, whereas the water pik was
>>> just a jet of water.

>>          It used to be a device or invention was invented, tested, and if it
>> worked someone who believed in it took it into production.  Now it seems
>> someone gets a whiz-bang idea that sounds somewhat plausible, produces
>> and promotes it, and hopes to make a quick killing.
>>          Sorry to be a buzz kill, but I've gotten pretty cynical about things
>> like this.  I've heard nothing, seen no research.  It may be there, but
>> if there was really something out there with a realistic chance of
>> replacing dental floss, I think I would have heard.
>>          Hope to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

>> Steve-

> I've actually used it--had a 30 day trial with Philips--and I HATED it
> and there's no way it takes the place of flosses, it cannot get in
> between the teeth like floss does...where the contacts are.  I think
> it would be great for cleaning under a bridge vs bridge flosser, but
> that's about it a and expensive for that limited use.