P&G Prevails In NAD Case Versus Philips’ Sonic Toothbrush Claims

The National Advertising Division recommends that Philips Oral Healthcare discontinue a handful of claims for Sonicare FlexCare and FlexCare+, including statements suggesting that its power toothbrushes outperform Procter & Gamble’s Oral-B Triumph 9000.

In a case report announced May 4, the Council of Better Business Bureaus division agrees with challenger P&G that certain Sonicare FlexCare claims on product packaging, as well as in print, video and Internet contexts, are “unsupportable.”

For example, Philips does not adequately back up its assertion that “Sonicare FlexCare is demonstrated in vitro to remove three times more plaque biofilm than Oral-B Triumph,” according to NAD’s decision.

Philips’ comparative plaque-reduction claim, based on a pair of single-use studies, could unfairly suggest that FlexCare+ is a better option than P&G’s Oral-B Triumph for improving long-term oral health, NAD says.

In support of its claim, Philips submitted data from a study that pitted FlexCare against Triumph, evaluating their effectiveness at removing plaque biofilm from discs slotted between sample molar teeth in a model of the oral cavity. Given the placement of the discs, toothbrush bristles were separated by two to four millimeters from the stained surfaces themselves.

According to Sonicare.com, Philips’ technology leverages “high-frequency and high-amplitude bristle motions [to] create dynamic cleaning action that drives fluids deep into the tight spaces between your teeth and along the gum line.”

Therefore, it was an appropriate test of the product’s effectiveness to have its bristles not actually touching the target surfaces. Such an approach simulates the “fluid dynamic activity” Sonicare is designed to generate to clean “between and behind teeth, even under the gum line, where plaque bacteria flourish.”

However, P&G’s Oral-B product – which relies on a different mechanism of action, a “rotating-oscillating design” – was used in the same way as the Sonicare brush in Philips’ study. It was shown to remove 22.8% of interproximal plaque versus Sonicare’s 73.3%.

P&G notes that “consumers brush by actually placing the bristles on their teeth” and questions whether a test using artificial teeth, saliva and plaque can reliably predict results in human mouths.

NAD says it “has repeatedly found that testing products according to the manufacturer’s use instructions is a critical indicium of reliability.” But in the study at hand, the Oral-B product was not tested as intended by manufacturer P&G, the watchdog says.

On the other hand, the study was sufficient to support Philips’ claim that Sonicare FlexCare is “demonstrated in vitro to clean beyond the reach of the bristles.”

Philips also ran into problems in its effort to shore up another superiority claim – “Sonicare FlexCare+ is clinically proven to remove more plaque than … Oral-B Triumph.” It supplied NAD with a pair of studies, both measuring plaque reduction after a single brushing. In both studies, FlexCare+ removed significantly more plaque than the Triumph brush.

While P&G submitted a contradictory single-use study in which Triumph removed more plaque than FlexCare+, NAD did not determine its study more “reliable” or compelling than Philips’.

The advertising watchdog also recognizes that “[Philips’] two studies provide a reasonable basis to support the literal truth that after one brushing under optimal conditions the FlexCare+ power brushes remove more plaque than the Oral-B Triumph 9000.”

But Philips’ claim is still misleading, NAD says, because a reasonable consumer could be led to believe the brushes’ plaque-removal efficacy will remain constant throughout the lifespan of the brush heads, which is not necessarily the case.

Furthermore, aware that there is a causal relationship between plaque reduction and improved long-term oral health, including reduction of gum disease and tooth decay, consumers could take away the message that FlexCare+ is clinically proven to be a superior option for improving oral health and preventing disease, NAD says.

Single-use studies do not provide the caliber of scientific evidence required to support a comparative long-term health claim, as Philips itself acknowledged in its statement to NAD. Therefore, the advertiser’s claim that “Sonicare FlexCare+ is clinically proven to remove more plaque than … Oral-B Triumph” should be discontinued, according to NAD.

It notes, however, that Philips does have a reasonable basis for “a carefully qualified single-use superior plaque-reduction claim.”

Further Issues In Matching Claims To Studies

NAD also recommends that Philips discontinue its claim that “Sonicare toothbrushes are clinically proven to reduce … gum recession.”

The advertiser’s supporting study demonstrated that its product can reduce gingival inflammation, a factor that contributes to gum recession.

“Because [Philips’] study measured inflammation and bleeding reductions in people with mild to moderate gingival inflammation rather than gum recession proper and only addressed one condition of many that leads to gum recession, the advertiser’s broad, unqualified establishment claim did not mirror the precision and specificity of the data it relied upon as substantiation,” NAD says.

Perceived weaknesses in Philips’ scientific evidence moved NAD to recommend that the company discontinue two other claims in their current form – “Patients Brushed Significantly Longer Using Sonicare FlexCare+ in the Gum Mode than with the Oral-B Triumph with Smart Guide” and “[Sonicare FlexCare+ is] Two Times Gentler on Dentin than Oral-B Triumph.”

On the other hand, the advertiser’s assertion that “the patented sonic technology of FlexCare creates a sweeping motion of the bristles that no other power toothbrush can match for unparalleled cleaning of the teeth and gums,” which P&G also contested, may stand as is, NAD says.

To come to its decision, the authority referred to the context in which the claim is delivered – a voiceover in an online video depicting “animated toothbrush bristles wiggling in a sweeping motion” – and noted that no other performance attribute or product is featured in that portion of the video.

“The claim ‘unparalleled cleaning of the teeth and gums’ is puffery,” NAD says, “because ‘cleaning’ – without other qualifying descriptions – is not a sufficiently specific toothbrush performance attribute for which consumers would expect the advertiser to have support.”

Similarly, in Philips’ website video the narrator says Sonicare FlexCare+ combines patented sonic technology and “the most advanced” design available in toothbrushing. At the same time, viewers receive a close-up of the FlexCare brush.

According to NAD, “most advanced design” could refer to the firm’s patented technology or the aesthetics of the FlexCare brush. In any event, consumers would not expect substantiation for such a “vague and ill-defined” claim, the watchdog says.

Philips may also continue to tout Sonicare FlexCare+ as the “#1 recommended brand by dental professionals” in contexts where a reasonable consumer would understand the claim to refer to power toothbrushes versus manual or all toothbrushes, NAD says.

Philips says it will “take appropriate steps to address NAD’s concerns in preparing future advertising.”

By Ryan Nelson