Deborah M Lyle1, C Ram Goyal2, Jimmy G Qaqish2, Reinhard Schuller3. 1. Water Pik, Inc., Fort Collins, CO, USA. 2. All Sum Research Center, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 3. Reinhard Schuller Consulting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized, single-use, single-blind, two-group, parallel pilot study was to compare the plaque removal ability of a water flosser and interdental brush when used in combination with a manual toothbrush. METHODS:Twenty-eight (28) subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Waterpik®Water Flosser (WF) plus manual tooth brushing or interdental brushes (IDB) plus manual tooth brushing. Pre-cleaning plaque scores were obtained using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects were instructed on the use of their interdental product. Post-cleaning scores were obtained after a supervised brushing and use of the interdental device. Scores were recorded for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual regions for each subject. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups for pre-cleaning plaque scores for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, or lingual regions. Both groups showed significant reductions in plaque from baseline for all areas measured (p < 0.001). The WF group was significantly more effective than the IDB group for removing plaque from all areas measured. Specifically, the WF was 18% more effective for whole mouth and marginal areas, 20% for approximal areas, 11% for facial areas, and 29% for lingual areas. CONCLUSIONS: The Waterpik Water Flosser and manual toothbrush removes significantly more plaque from tooth surfaces (whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual) than interdental brushes and a manual toothbrush after a single use.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized, single-use, single-blind, two-group, parallel pilot study was to compare the plaque removal ability of a water flosser and interdental brush when used in combination with a manual toothbrush. METHODS: Twenty-eight (28) subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Waterpik®Water Flosser (WF) plus manual tooth brushing or interdental brushes (IDB) plus manual tooth brushing. Pre-cleaning plaque scores were obtained using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects were instructed on the use of their interdental product. Post-cleaning scores were obtained after a supervised brushing and use of the interdental device. Scores were recorded for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual regions for each subject. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups for pre-cleaning plaque scores for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, or lingual regions. Both groups showed significant reductions in plaque from baseline for all areas measured (p < 0.001). The WF group was significantly more effective than the IDB group for removing plaque from all areas measured. Specifically, the WF was 18% more effective for whole mouth and marginal areas, 20% for approximal areas, 11% for facial areas, and 29% for lingual areas. CONCLUSIONS: The Waterpik Water Flosser and manual toothbrush removes significantly more plaque from tooth surfaces (whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual) than interdental brushes and a manual toothbrush after a single use.
Authors: Helen V Worthington; Laura MacDonald; Tina Poklepovic Pericic; Dario Sambunjak; Trevor M Johnson; Pauline Imai; Janet E Clarkson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-10