Crest · Dental Floss
Crest Glide Pro Health Floss original 54.7 yd
Lower PFAS concern; no known coating or water-repellent coating treatment typical in basic floss.
Crest Glide Pro Health original floss is a basic polyethylene/nylon dental floss with no reported waterproof, stain-resistant, or non-stick coatings that would warrant PFAS use. The brand discloses nothing about PFAS, and no independent lab testing is publicly available.
Shop Crest on Amazon →Material
Polyethylene/nylon floss (unflavored original)
Brand disclosure
Brand is silent on PFAS
Lab data
No public lab test
Why this grade
Category baseline
cosmetics is a category where PFAS exposure is more common.
No PFAS disclosure
No public statement about PFAS in this product.
Safe base material
Made from a material with no inherent PFAS use (ceramic, mineral, or natural fiber).
The full breakdown
What it's made of and why it matters
Crest Glide Pro Health uses polyethylene or nylon filament (the product line historically features waxed nylon), materials chosen for strength, flexibility, and ability to slide between tight teeth without shredding. Both polymers are non-toxic when used as intended in the oral cavity and do not leach harmful chemicals during normal flossing. The wax coating (typically paraffin or microcrystalline) aids glide but poses no ingestion risk in the small quantities present during flossing.
The brand's record and disclosure
Crest (owned by Procter & Gamble) does not publicly disclose detailed PFAS testing or stance for floss products, consistent with most mainstream dental brands. P&G has faced scrutiny on other product categories (notably textiles and water-resistant goods) but dental floss has not been a focus of regulatory attention or recalls related to chemical hazards. No independent testing of Crest floss for heavy metals, phthalates, or other leachables has been published in the medical literature.
How it compares in its category
Crest Glide is a mid-market, mainstream floss with performance comparable to other waxed nylon options from brands like Oral-B and store brands. Silk floss (if available) may appeal to consumers seeking natural materials, but offers no documented safety advantage over synthetic floss for oral health. This product's 54.7 yard spool is standard size and cost-competitive.
If you buy it
Use as directed daily; floss is not meant to be swallowed and the small quantity in the mouth poses no hazard if accidentally ingested in fragments. Store in a cool, dry place to prevent the wax from degrading (though this affects performance, not safety). Replace the spool when depleted or when floss begins to shred, which signals fiber breakdown. No special precautions needed beyond standard oral hygiene practice.
Beyond PFAS: other things we checked
Established hazard classes for this product type, assessed from public information. These never change the PFAS grade; a Likely flag caps the Verdict at “Buy with care.”
Wax coating ingestion risk
Paraffin and microcrystalline waxes used in dental floss are food-grade and non-toxic; accidental ingestion of small amounts during flossing carries no established harm.
Microplastic shedding
Polyethylene and nylon filament may shed microscopic fibers during use, particularly if floss is worn or frayed. Long-term health significance of oral microplastic exposure is not yet established in scientific literature.
Heavy metal contamination in filament
No published testing or recalls document lead, cadmium, or other heavy metals in Crest floss; polymer manufacturing standards in major brands make contamination unlikely but not independently verified for this product.
Allergic reaction to additives
Mint or flavor additives (if present in flavored variants) may trigger contact allergies in sensitive individuals; original unflavored version minimizes this risk but still contains the base polymer and wax.
Gum irritation from mechanical damage
Aggressive flossing or use of worn, frayed floss can cause cuts or bleeding; this is a mechanical hazard, not a chemical one, and depends on user technique rather than product formulation.
What we don’t know
This grade is a model-based estimate from public materials, coatings, and brand disclosure at 72% confidence. It is not a lab result.
No independent PFAS lab test is on record for this exact product. A lab test could move the score in either direction.
The brand has not made a specific, verifiable PFAS-free statement, so part of this score reflects that missing disclosure rather than a confirmed material.
Formulations and coatings change between production runs. Always check the current label before buying.
Safer alternatives in Dental Floss
Cocofloss
Refill Trio
Coconut fiber, based floss with plant-based coating
Lower-concern dental product; natural materials and transparent PFAS stance, but no independent verification.
⚠Risky category by default
Dental Lace
Refillable Silk Dental Floss
Silk floss with compostable refillable packaging
Lower concern; silk floss with credible PFAS-free positioning and third-party certification.
✓Verified PFAS-free by a third party
Dental Lace
Plant Based/Vegan Floss Refillable Glass Container PFAS-Free (2 Spools/4-
Plant-based vegan floss (likely plant cellulose or silk fibers)
Lower-concern product with explicit PFAS-free claim; no third-party verification limits certainty.
⚠Risky category by default
More dental floss grades
How we score: every product runs through the same public 0–100 rubric based on materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls. See the full methodology → Spotted a mistake? Report an error.