Objectives: The most effective way to control gingivitis and periodontitis is biofilm mechanical removal. The aim of this randomized and clinical study was to compare the efficacy of three different methods of controlling interproximal biofilm: Dental tape, Dental floss holder (Flosser®), and Superfloss®. Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CAAE 29376820.8.0000.5374) and consisted of 15 volunteers, of both genders, with ages between 18 and 50 years who present at Dental School São Leopoldo Mandic, having sufficient motor skills for the oral hygiene suggested and with plaque index greater than 20%. All participants received instructions to brush using Bass technique as well the correct way to practice interproximal cleaning. The bleeding index (BI) using the periodontal millimeter probe and the plaque index (PI) through disclosing agents were taken in the five phases of the study (baseline, 15,30,45 and 60 days). Randomly, the 15 volunteers were divided in three Groups with three specific apparatus (A-Dental tape, B-Flosser®, and C-Superfloss®). At the 15 subsequent days, Groups A, B, and C, through a new randomized drawing, received an original tool . There was a 15-day Washout period between the second and the third method, in which the volunteer could choose to use the cleaning apparatus they preferred among the two previously used. Results: The variance analyses for randomized blocks indicated a statistically significance difference in PI (P < 0.001) and bleeding index (P = 0.011), better to Flosser®, compared others. During the washout period, the most of volunteers opted by Flosser®, reporting great ease and practicality. Conclusion: Despite the bleeding and PI reduction with the different devices, the dental floss holder (Flosser®) is a viable alternatives to manual flossing, still being preferred by volunteers.