How we research, write and correct these guides

Oral Cove editorial deskUpdated September 2026
Short answer

Four rules. Dental claims trace to a named source such as the ADA, the NHS or a Cochrane review. Tools publish their formula. We say when evidence is weak, mixed or funded by a device maker. Corrections are dated and visible. This page explains the standard and how to challenge it.

The four rules

  1. A named source, never a vibe. Every health or safety claim on this site points to a specific document: an ADA oral health topic, NHS guidance, a Cochrane review, or a named peer-reviewed trial. Where we publish a number, we say where it came from.
  2. Tools publish their method. The routine builder lists its questions and how each answer scores. The brush head calculator prints its formula underneath the tool. You can disagree with the arithmetic rather than with the conclusion.
  3. We flag the funding. Much of the water flosser research is funded by device manufacturers. Where that is the case we say so in the sentence that reports the result, not in a footnote. A manufacturer-funded trial can still be well run, and an independent review still carries more weight when the two disagree.
  4. We state the limits out loud. The 2019 Cochrane review described the oral irrigator evidence as limited and inconsistent, and no trial in it measured tooth decay between the teeth. Pages on this site say that rather than implying more certainty than exists.

Our standard for dental claims

Claim type What we require before publishing
A number about gum health, bleeding, plaque or abrasion A named study or review with the sample size and follow-up length in the sentence or the paragraph beside it
A recommendation on cleaning technique or frequency Agreement between at least two of the ADA, the NHS and a Cochrane review, or a note when they differ
A device claim A statement of who funded or supplied the device in the trial being cited
A compatibility claim about brush heads The manufacturer own documentation, such as the Philips model-lookup guidance, rather than a marketplace listing description
Anything about diagnosis, medication or disease progression Not published. We describe cleaning routines and refer those questions to a clinician
On conflicts of interestThis is a shop. We sell water flossers, compatible brush heads, interdental brushes and floss picks, so the guides here cannot pretend to be neutral about which category you buy. The standard we hold ourselves to is disclosure plus honesty: when the cheaper or simpler tool is the right one, we say so, as in the comparison article where interdental brushes at a few dollars are named as the better-evidenced tool for plaque despite costing us a sale.

What we will not do

Not this Why
Invent statistics or attribute them vaguely to "studies" It is the fastest way to lose a reader who checks, and it is the reason so much oral care content is unusable
Present a manufacturer-funded trial as independent The funding note changes how much weight a result deserves, so it belongs next to the result
Tell anyone to skip a dentist or to self-treat gum disease Cleaning routine advice has limits. Bleeding that does not settle, loose teeth and swelling are clinical problems
Publish fake reviews, review counts or before-and-after photos We would rather have fewer pages than manufactured trust
Copy a competitor guide and reword it Every page here is written from the primary documents listed in its Sources block
Claim a compatible brush head performs like an original No trial we could find compares them, so the claim cannot be made by anyone selling either one

How a page gets written

  1. Start from the question people actually ask. The FAQ blocks here use the questions that appear in search results for these topics, verbatim where they fit.
  2. Pull the primary documents: manufacturer manuals for settings and technique, ADA and NHS pages for frequency and fluoride strength, Cochrane reviews and randomised trials for outcomes.
  3. Read the funding statement and the limitations section before writing anything, because both usually change the wording.
  4. Where a decision depends on arithmetic, such as heads per year or cost per day, build a tool instead of describing the sum in prose.
  5. Write the shortest version that answers the question, then add only the detail that stops a reader making a bad purchase.
  6. Run a second pass looking for overclaiming. Any sentence that asserts more than its source supports gets cut, softened or attached to a caveat.

Corrections and contact

If a page here is wrong, out of date, or cites something that has since changed, tell us. We will correct the page and note the date. The fastest route is the contact page, and the water flosser pages carry a review date because device instructions and reviews do change.

Use the standard on these pages

Sources

  1. American Dental Association. Oral health topics, dental floss and interdental cleaners — www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/floss
  2. American Dental Association. Oral health topics, toothbrushes — www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/toothbrushes
  3. NHS. How to keep your teeth clean — www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-teeth-and-gums/how-to-keep-your-teeth-clean/
  4. Worthington HV, MacDonald L, Poklepovic Pericic T, et al. Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019 — www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD012018_home-use-devices-cleaning-between-teeth-addition-toothbrushing-prevent-and-control-gum-diseases-and
  5. Mancinelli-Lyle D, Van der Weijden GA, Slot DE. Water flosser compared to an interdental brush: a 4-week randomised controlled trial, International Journal of Dental Hygiene 2025 (funding statement cited in our comparison article) — pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11717974/