text: While only 4 percent of Americans believe that they have gum disease, the reality is that 75 percent actually do. This number is nearly directly proportional to that percentage of Americans who do not floss on a regular basis, if at all. And in a country where it is widely recognized that prevention is the best medicine, there is obviously plenty of room for improvement. So with the number of people with gum disease being what it is, and flossing being the best means of prevention, it is not surprising that, although both are useful, flossing is recognized as being more important to oral hygiene and health than brushing teeth.
  Although many flossing instruments have been designed (as is apparent by the number of patents issued in this field and listed below), few go to market. About the only flossing instruments available are the "forked wand-like" floss holders such as those taught by Lee in U.S. Pat. No. 5,141,008, Eisen in U.S. Pat. No. 5,125,424, and El Gazayedi in U.S. Pat. No. 5,139,038. These devices have a serious drawback in that the user typically winds the floss around pegs in order to fix the floss between the supports. Thus, when the floss between the supports is spent or severed between the tight spacings of adjacent teeth, the user must unwind, advance, and then rewind the floss before proceeding. This is very time consuming and usually leaves the user sticking to the common method of winding the floss around their fingers (which has its own drawbacks: hurts the fingers and is awkward).
  Although there are many inventions where the floss is more easily dispensed and advanced across the floss supports, many are not only too complicated to use, but also too complicated to manufacture for a price which would encourage the public to try them, and some just simply do not work effectively. The prior art that would possibly result in a useful instrument typically is made of several pieces that require a great deal of pre-marketing assembly which in turn increases the price. "Forked wand-like" floss holders have both the manufacturing and market price advantage in that they are made in a single molding process, but still as aforementioned, their usefulness is quite limited.
  Another situation, other than the lack of a good flossing instruments, that causes people to neglect flossing is when they are fitted with orthodontic braces. The fact that most of those fitted with braces are children who are less likely to see the long-term benefits of flossing only makes things worse. With this being the case, and many children gaining bad habits that will be hard to change (which is apparent from the large percentage of adults that floss very little, if at all) there is quite a bit of room here, regardless of the number of prior art patents, for improvement.
  The most common current method of flossing with braces requires the threading of the floss behind the arch-wire that is fitted to all the brackets which are adhesively fixed to the fronts of the teeth. This process must be repeated for every gap between adjacent teeth and is extremely time consuming.
  Accordingly, for persons having braces, a great need exists for an instrument that somehow works behind the arch-wire to eliminate the threading procedure and thus speed up the flossing operation. The problem arose: what is structurally stable while still being small enough to fit behind the orthodontic arch-wire (approximately 0.040 inches thick.times.0.080 inches wide). Commonly, most of the gaps between orthodontic arch-wire and the teeth are greater than 0.040 inches. However, in some cases there is little more than 0.040 inches.
  The following prior art reflects the state of the art of which applicant is aware and is included herewith to discharge applicant's acknowledged duty to disclose relevant prior art. It is stipulated, however, that none of these references teach singly nor render obvious when considered in any conceivable combination the nexus of the instant invention as disclosed in greater detail hereinafter and as particularly claimed.
  ______________________________________ U.S. PAT. NO. ISSUE DATE INVENTOR ______________________________________ 3,896,824 July 1975 Thornton 4,030,199 June 1977 Russell 4,133,339 January 1979 Naslund 4,222,143 September 1980 Tarrson 4,597,398 July 1986 Chu 4,691,401 September 1987 Tarrson 4,920,993 May 1990 Mackie 4,982,752 January 1991 Rodriguez 5,101,843 April 1992 Peng 5,123,432 June 1992 Wyss 5,125,424 June 1992 Eisen 5,139,038 August 1992 El Gazayerli 5,141,008 August 1992 Lee ______________________________________
  U.S. Pat. No. 4,597,398, to Chu, teaches the use of a tool that goes behind the arch-wire and provides a post to be 0.5 mm (0.020 inches). This instrument requires the user to reach inside their mouth to force the floss between adjacent teeth whereas this invention has a second floss support that goes behind the teeth and allows the user to keep both hands outside one's mouth.
  U.S. Pat. No. 4,920,993, to Mackie teaches a tool that allows the user to keep both hands outside the mouth, but uses two separate "pistol-looking" floss supports, one each held in separate hands. This would be quite difficult to coordinate because the instrument is basically an extension of each of the user's hands, not their own hands by themselves. By contrast, with the instant invention, the two floss supports are fixed relative to one another, and thus once the outer support is aligned, the inner support is inherently generally aligned. Mackie's invention is also unsanitary in that the unit would tend to collect food debris in his pick up apparatus that was recently dislodged from the teeth during the flossing process. It is also improbable that the complicated design of this invention would result in an instrument that is marketable due to its high manufacturing cost.
  U.S. Pat. No. 5,101,843, to Peng is a disposable flosser, and thus quite expensive to use on a regular basis, unlike the present invention which is suitable for repeated use until the spool is spent. Even then, it is possible the spool could be replaced. In addition, serious doubts exist about the advantages, and perhaps some drawbacks, of the Peng curved floss supports. Injury to the gums is avoided with the first support of the present invention because the user gently inserts the first floss support behind the arch-wire while the floss is relaxed. The floss is then forced between adjacent teeth after the entire instrument, and thus support, is secured and stationary. The floss of Peng's invention is always taut. It is also possible that if the curved floss support of Peng's invention has been rotated around the arch-wire (per his described method) and then the floss becomes caught in the tight spacings between adjacent teeth, it would leave the user prone to catching the arch-wire with the curved floss support, when the floss comes free, with enough force to cause the user's teeth to ache, if not damage the braces. In the use of the present invention, if the floss becomes caught between adjacent teeth, the floss is simply relaxed, the support gently removed from behind the arch-wire, and then the floss is safely pulled free.
  Many other patents, such as U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,125,424 and 5,141,008, provide two fixed floss supports, dispensing and floss advancing ability, but none are tailored for those fitted with braces. Also, none of the prior art has described the floss action of the present invention as the floss moves through adjacent teeth, nor has taught the automatic floss advancing means inherent to the instant instrument's method of use (to be detailed). Without this method of use, the users of the prior art are resigned to forcing a taut strand of floss between adjacent teeth by manipulating the entire instrument, via the handle, in a prying motion. With the instant instrument, the user simply pulls gently on the pick-up end of the floss (which is conveniently located outside the mouth) while the instrument remains stationary.
  Also, in most other inventions (e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 5,125,424), the arm (the functional part that is inserted in the mouth) and the handle/floss spool cavity are separate pieces that plug together. It is doubtful whether this press fitting could be maintained while continually being stressed when repeatedly forcing the floss between the tightest spacings of adjacent teeth. Since the instrument of the present invention is stationary when the floss moves through the adjacent teeth, this would not be a drawback. Additionally, the floss spool access is located at the side of the handle opposite the arm to maintain a one mold manufacturing process. The cap is connected to the floss spool cavity via a plastic hinge; cap and hinge both being molded with the remainder of the instrument in one molding process. As a result, the other flossing instruments are more difficult to manufacture.