Glide · Dental Floss
Oral-B Glide Pro-Health Deep Clean Floss
Lower concern; common nylon floss with no known PFAS use, but brand transparency is absent.
Oral-B Glide floss is a traditional nylon-based dental floss with wax coating. Nylon floss and wax are not typical PFAS-use categories like non-stick cookware or water-repellent coating textiles, suggesting lower inherent risk.
Shop Glide on Amazon →Material
Nylon-coated floss (polyester/nylon strand with wax coating)
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
Oral-B Glide Pro-Health Deep Clean Floss is a nylon-based strand coated with wax (typically polyethylene or similar food-grade wax). Nylon is a synthetic polymer that does not leach into saliva under normal oral conditions because it remains insoluble in water and is not exposed to heat or abrasive conditions that would degrade it. The wax coating serves as a lubricant to ease interdental gliding and does not pose ingestion risk in the tiny quantities that may be consumed during use.
The brand's record and disclosure
Oral-B (owned by Procter & Gamble) does not publish detailed material safety data sheets or chemical composition transparency for floss products, which is typical but limits independent verification. No recalls or safety warnings specific to Oral-B Glide floss are on record with the FDA or consumer safety databases. The brand has not addressed PFAS content publicly, though standard nylon floss materials are not known to incorporate intentional PFAS use.
How it compares in its category
Oral-B Glide is a mainstream, widely-used floss with no documented hazard profile distinct from competitor nylon flosses (Colgate Total, Reach). Some consumers prefer natural or silk alternatives citing concern about synthetic polymers, though nylon floss poses no established chemical risk that exceeds silk or polyester variants. Waxed vs. unwaxed floss is a preference choice; both are chemically safe in normal use.
If you buy it
Use as directed: gentle back-and-forth motion between teeth, do not swallow large amounts of floss. There are no temperature or storage limits because floss is stored at room temperature and never exposed to heat during use. Replace the dispenser when empty; there is no recommended maintenance. If gums bleed excessively or show signs of irritation, discontinue and consult a dentist, though this is typically a sign of gum disease rather than floss toxicity.
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 (minor)
Polyethylene or paraffin wax coatings are food-grade and non-toxic in trace amounts incidentally swallowed during flossing; no poisoning cases documented.
Nylon polymer degradation or shedding
Nylon does not degrade under oral saliva exposure at body temperature; floss is designed not to fray or shed fibers under normal use tension.
Oral irritation or allergic reaction
Rare individual sensitivity to nylon or wax is theoretically possible but not documented in clinical use; discontinue if gum bleeding or soreness occurs beyond normal flossing adjustment period.
Choking or mechanical injury risk
Floss poses a choking hazard for infants and young children; not a chemical hazard but a product safety consideration for storage and supervision.
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.