OBJECTIVE: To determine if an adjunct proteolytic pre-rinse along with contemporary methods of dental cleaning may more effectively remove visual plaque in subjects with fixed orthodontic appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty-three orthodontic subjects, ages 10 to 25, completed this single site, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. Subjects randomly received bromelain enzyme or a powdered-sugar placebo pre-rinse, followed by manual tooth brushing and use of a Waterpik. Subjects received the alternate pre-rinse during the subsequent visit. Baseline and residual plaque accumulation were recorded via disclosing tablet and digital photography. A single, blinded examiner scored visual plaque scores from randomized photographs. Treatment effects on composite plaque score were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis of variance. A 5% significance level was used for all tests. RESULTS: No significant differences in plaque scores were noted at baseline or post-rinse between the enzyme and placebo. The changes from baseline to post-rinse (P = .190), post-brushing (P = .764), and post-Waterpik (P = .882) were not significantly different between interventions. Significant reduction in plaque scores were observed in both arms of the study after brushing (P < .01) and waterjet use (P < .01). Neither age (P = .220) nor gender (P = .449) impacted plaque scores. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a bromelain enzyme pre-rinse alone did not significantly enhance plaque removal. A significant reduction in retained plaque was observed with the application of brushing and or Waterpik.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine if an adjunct proteolytic pre-rinse along with contemporary methods of dental cleaning may more effectively remove visual plaque in subjects with fixed orthodontic appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three orthodontic subjects, ages 10 to 25, completed this single site, double-blind, crossover clinical trial. Subjects randomly received bromelain enzyme or a powdered-sugar placebo pre-rinse, followed by manual tooth brushing and use of a Waterpik. Subjects received the alternate pre-rinse during the subsequent visit. Baseline and residual plaque accumulation were recorded via disclosing tablet and digital photography. A single, blinded examiner scored visual plaque scores from randomized photographs. Treatment effects on composite plaque score were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis of variance. A 5% significance level was used for all tests. RESULTS: No significant differences in plaque scores were noted at baseline or post-rinse between the enzyme and placebo. The changes from baseline to post-rinse (P = .190), post-brushing (P = .764), and post-Waterpik (P = .882) were not significantly different between interventions. Significant reduction in plaque scores were observed in both arms of the study after brushing (P < .01) and waterjet use (P < .01). Neither age (P = .220) nor gender (P = .449) impacted plaque scores. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a bromelain enzyme pre-rinse alone did not significantly enhance plaque removal. A significant reduction in retained plaque was observed with the application of brushing and or Waterpik.
Authors: N C Praveen; A Rajesh; Manish Madan; Vishwajit Rampratap Chaurasia; Neel V Hiremath; Akanksha Manmohan Sharma Journal: J Int Oral Health Date: 2014-09