Literature DB >> 15711898

Plaque and gingivitis reduction in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances-comparison of toothbrushes and interdental cleaning aids. A 6-month clinical single-blind trial.

Christoph Kossack1, Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann.   

Abstract

AIM: Comparison of the efficacy of different oral cleaning devices to improve dental hygiene in patients with multibracket appliances. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a single-blind four-way crossover clinical trial, the following toothbrushes and cleaning aids were tested over 6 months to determine their efficacy in removing plaque and preventing gingivitis: the (A) manual interX short brush-head toothbrush (elmex), the (B) Sonic Speed SR-100E sonic toothbrush (Water Pik), the (C) Sonic Speed toothbrush in conjunction with the electric interdental cleaning device Flosser FL-110 (Water Pik), and (D) the Sonic Speed sonic toothbrush in conjunction with multi-floss 3-phase dental floss (elmex). Forty patients were randomly split up into four groups. Each group brushed their teeth for 4 weeks using cleaning aids/combinations A, B, C or D in different orders. The trial organization was controlled by a computer system that also assisted in recording the modified Quigley Hein Index (mQHI) and Papillary Bleeding Index (PBI) every two weeks using voice control.
RESULTS: Initial improvement was observed with all cleaning aids/combinations, but after 4 weeks of application, conditions deteriorated again--except one. After 4 weeks of application, only cleaning involving the combined use of the sonic toothbrush and the Flosser FL-110 (C) was found to be significantly more effective than cleaning with the manual toothbrush (A), and that was mainly attributed to the flosser. In patients with good oral hygiene (mQHI(initial) < or = 1.4), no improvement was observed with any of the cleaning aids (A-D).
CONCLUSIONS: Plaque and gingivitis can be reduced--especially in patients with poor oral hygiene (mQHI(initial) > or = 1.5)-by using an interdental cleaning aid. In the long run, the Flosser FL-110 is more effective than multi-floss 3-phase dental floss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15711898     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-005-0344-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  5 in total

1.  A randomized controlled trial of a power brush/irrigator/mouthrinse routine on plaque and gingivitis reduction in orthodontic patients.

Authors:  Christina Erbe; Malgorzata Klukowska; Hans C Timm; Matthew L Barker; Janneke van der Wielen; Heinrich Wehrbein
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  A visual evaluation of oral plaque removal utilizing an adjunct enzyme pre-rinse in orthodontic subjects.

Authors:  Jennifer Rose; Ahmed Ghoneima; Frank Lippert; Lisa Maxwell; George Eckert; Kelton T Stewart
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 3.  Impact of Orthodontic Treatment on Periodontal Tissues: A Narrative Review of Multidisciplinary Literature.

Authors:  Angelina Gorbunkova; Giorgio Pagni; Anna Brizhak; Giampietro Farronato; Giulio Rasperini
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2016-01-19

4.  Comparative in vitro study of the cleaning efficacy of AirFloss ultra and I-Prox Sulcus brushes in an orthodontic phantom model.

Authors:  Hanna Boes; Sören Brüstle; Gholamreza Danesh; Stefan Zimmer; Mozhgan Bizhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Effects of Kangfuxin solution on IL-1β, IL-6, IL-17 and TNF-α in gingival crevicular fluid in patients with fixed orthodontic gingivitis.

Authors:  Yuting Liu; Fengping Mu; Lijuan Liu; Chune Shan
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 2.447

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.