Isodent · Dental Floss
Floss Dental Mint Ultraclean, 90 yd (J&J)
Lower-concern choice; traditional nylon floss rarely uses PFAS, but brand discloses nothing.
Dental floss is typically made from nylon or other synthetic polymers without deliberate PFAS treatment. J&J/Isodent does not publicize PFAS risk or testing for this product. No public lab data or recalls exist. Floss poses inherently lower PFAS exposure than coated cookware or water-repellent textiles, but full transparency is absent.
Shop Isodent on Amazon →Material
Nylon filament floss
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
Floss Dental Mint Ultraclean is nylon monofilament or multifilament floss, the most common dental floss material. Nylon is chemically inert in the oral cavity and does not leach into saliva under normal use conditions. The mint flavoring is typically a food-grade additive (menthol or synthetic mint compounds) applied to the surface; quantities are negligible for systemic exposure. Nylon floss carries no established risk of heavy-metal contamination, BPA, or phthalate migration at the small scale of use.
The brand's record and disclosure
Isodent is owned by Johnson & Johnson, a company with established quality and safety protocols for oral-care products subject to FDA oversight as Class I or II medical devices. J&J does not publicly disclose detailed safety testing or material sourcing for individual budget floss SKUs. The parent company has not faced significant recalls or safety controversies specific to nylon floss products. Direct transparency on third-party certifications or independent testing for Floss Dental Mint is limited.
How it compares in its category
Standard nylon floss (this product) is the safest category option compared to waxed floss (wax composition varies; some use natural beeswax, others synthetic polymers that may include additives). Specialty floss marketed as 'charcoal-infused' or with nano-particles carries slightly higher uncertainty. At 90 yards for a budget price point, this product is typical for mass-market dental floss with no unusual material claims or proprietary coatings that would introduce novel hazards.
If you buy it
Store in a cool, dry place away from direct heat or sunlight to preserve mint flavoring and prevent nylon brittleness. Floss should be replaced when fraying occurs or after 12 months of storage (synthetic fibers degrade slowly). Use once daily; no special precautions needed for children or during pregnancy. Do not ingest; small amounts of floss swallowed accidentally are not toxic but may cause choking hazard in very young children.
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.”
Mint flavoring allergens or sensitivity
Menthol or synthetic mint compounds may trigger mouth irritation in users with mint sensitivity or existing oral ulcers. Incidence is rare and reversible upon discontinuation.
Nylon microparticles from fraying
Worn or damaged floss may shed fine nylon fibers; swallowing is unlikely to cause harm but repeated ingestion of microplastics is a theoretical concern under active research. Practical risk is minimal with normal use.
Choking or gum trauma
Not a material hazard but a user-error risk: improper technique can cause gum cuts or, rarely, accidental swallowing of floss bundles. This applies to all floss products and is preventable with care.
Dye or colorant safety in wax coating
Floss Dental Mint appears to be unwaxed nylon; if a wax coating is present, no established hazards from approved food-grade colorants are documented for this brand.
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.