PURPOSE: To develop an interproximal laboratory model to compare the potential effectiveness of powered brushing to remove biofilm plaque from interproximal spaces beyond the reach of bristles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Streptococcus mutans biofilms were first grown on glass microscope slides in a drip-flow reactor. The slides were removed and positioned in the interproximal model. Each slide was exposed to 15 seconds powered brushing with either the Sonicare Elite or the Braun Oral-B 3D Excel. The thickness of the biofilm was measured with confocal microscopy at various distances from the bristle tips. RESULTS: The Sonicare Elite reduced the thickness of biofilm by 57% at a distance of 0-5 mm from the bristle tips, 53% at 5-10 mm and 43% at 10-15 mm, relative to biofilm in areas unexposed to brushing. All reductions in thickness were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The Braun Oral-B 3D Excel reduced the biofilm thickness by 16%, 13%, and 19% at the same distances respectively, but the thickness reductions were not statistically significant from those in the unexposed areas (P > 0.1).
PURPOSE: To develop an interproximal laboratory model to compare the potential effectiveness of powered brushing to remove biofilm plaque from interproximal spaces beyond the reach of bristles. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Streptococcus mutans biofilms were first grown on glass microscope slides in a drip-flow reactor. The slides were removed and positioned in the interproximal model. Each slide was exposed to 15 seconds powered brushing with either the Sonicare Elite or the Braun Oral-B 3D Excel. The thickness of the biofilm was measured with confocal microscopy at various distances from the bristle tips. RESULTS: The Sonicare Elite reduced the thickness of biofilm by 57% at a distance of 0-5 mm from the bristle tips, 53% at 5-10 mm and 43% at 10-15 mm, relative to biofilm in areas unexposed to brushing. All reductions in thickness were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The Braun Oral-B 3D Excel reduced the biofilm thickness by 16%, 13%, and 19% at the same distances respectively, but the thickness reductions were not statistically significant from those in the unexposed areas (P > 0.1).
Authors: Ernest E Braxton; Garth D Ehrlich; Luanne Hall-Stoodley; Paul Stoodley; Rick Veeh; Christoph Fux; Fen Z Hu; Matthew Quigley; J Christopher Post Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Julia C Schmidt; Monika Astasov-Frauenhoffer; Irmgard Hauser-Gerspach; Jan-Philipp Schmidt; Tuomas Waltimo; Roland Weiger; Clemens Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Darla M Goeres; Martin A Hamilton; Nicholas A Beck; Kelli Buckingham-Meyer; Jackie D Hilyard; Linda R Loetterle; Lindsey A Lorenz; Diane K Walker; Philip S Stewart Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2009 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Martinus J Verkaik; Henk J Busscher; Minie Rustema-Abbing; Anje M Slomp; Frank Abbas; Henny C van der Mei Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Julia C Schmidt; Monika Astasov-Frauenhoffer; Tuomas Waltimo; Roland Weiger; Clemens Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Julia C Schmidt; Monika Astasov-Frauenhoffer; Tuomas Waltimo; Roland Weiger; Clemens Walter Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 3.573