Literature DB >> 11505962

Clinical evaluation of an automatic flossing device vs. manual flossing.

O Shibly1, S G Ciancio, S Shostad, M Mather, T J Boardman.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of an automatic flossing device to manual flossing. A total of seventy adult subjects (20 males and 50 females) were stratified into two groups balanced for age, sex, modified gingival index (MGI), plaque index (PI) and bleeding sites (Eastman Bleeding Index) using screening data. One group was randomly assigned the automatic power flosser and the other group was assigned manual dental floss. The subjects were instructed to brush their teeth twice a day (in the morning and before bedtime) for 30 seconds using the provided manual toothbrush and toothpaste. They were also to use their assigned dental floss or automatic power flosser once in the morning following toothbrushing. There was no significant difference between manual flossing and automatic flossing with respect to the MGI and the BI. There was, however, a significant difference at day 15 in the PI; however, this difference was only 0.73%. There was no significant difference in the PI at day 30 between the two techniques. The statistically significant difference noted in the interproximal PI at both day 15 and day 30 was less than 2%. Since the differences in plaque scores between the groups were so small, there was no apparent impact on gingival health since both flossers resulted in similar health benefits. Since there was a marked preference for the automatic flosser, patient compliance with the automatic flossing device may be better than with manual floss. Therefore, overall gingival health may benefit from this device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11505962

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Dent        ISSN: 0895-8831


  7 in total

1.  Experimental study determining the mechanical properties of dental floss holders.

Authors:  Anna Wolff; Maria Pritsch; Christof Dörfer; Hans Jörg Staehle
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  A network meta-analysis of interproximal oral hygiene methods in the reduction of clinical indices of inflammation.

Authors:  Georgios A Kotsakis; Qinshu Lian; Andreas L Ioannou; Bryan S Michalowicz; Mike T John; Haitao Chu
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 6.993

3.  Effect of a multi-faceted intervention on gingival health among adults with systemic sclerosis.

Authors:  Hon K Yuen; Yanqiu Weng; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay; Susan G Reed; Renata S Leite; Richard M Silver
Journal:  Clin Exp Rheumatol       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 4.473

4.  Effectiveness of flossing loops in the control of the gingival health.

Authors:  Francisco Azcarate-Velázquez; Roberto Garrido-Serrano; Gabriel Castillo-Dalí; María-Angeles Serrera-Figallo; Alfonso Gañán-Calvo; Daniel Torres-Lagares
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-06-01

5.  Bacterial colonisation during regular daily use of a power-driven water flosser and risk for cross-contamination. Can it be prevented?

Authors:  Chiarra Geissberger; David Zinndorf; Kristina Bertl; Pia Edlund Johansson; Hatem Al-Shammari; Sigrun Eick; Andreas Stavropoulos
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-09-18       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Mean Attitude Score Regarding Dental Floss among Dentists in a District of Nepal: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Shristi Kafle; Erika Shrestha; Rajib Chaulagain; Bashu Raj Pandey
Journal:  JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc       Date:  2022-01-15       Impact factor: 0.556

7.  Bacterial colonization of a power-driven water flosser during regular use. A proof-of-principle study.

Authors:  Kristina Bertl; Pia Edlund Johansson; Corinna Bruckmann; Matthias Leonhard; Julia R Davies; Andreas Stavropoulos
Journal:  Clin Exp Dent Res       Date:  2021-05-26
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.