BACKGROUND: Although routine interdental cleaning is important and recommended by dental professionals, compliance has been relatively low. To aid in improving compliance, an electrically powered device has been developed. METHODS: This six-month randomized, single-blinded, parallel-group study was conducted to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of a new interdental cleaning device (Braun Oral-B Interclean, model ID2) with those of an ADA-approved waxed dental floss in healthy adults. RESULTS: The authors found no statistically significant difference between the two products with respect to the gingival index or gingival bleeding index after three or six months of use. A one-time product use, at the six-month examination, confirmed the equivalency of the two methods with respect to removal of dental plaque. The oral soft-tissue status of both groups of subjects also remained comparable throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Use of the interdental cleaning device and dental floss resulted in comparable benefits with respect to gingival health and plaque removal. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although it was not shown to be an improvement over dental floss, the cleaning device was comparable in every respect. Since it can be used with one hand and does not require as much dexterity as floss, the device warrants consideration by those who lack the motivation or are unable to use dental floss.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although routine interdental cleaning is important and recommended by dental professionals, compliance has been relatively low. To aid in improving compliance, an electrically powered device has been developed. METHODS: This six-month randomized, single-blinded, parallel-group study was conducted to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of a new interdental cleaning device (Braun Oral-B Interclean, model ID2) with those of an ADA-approved waxed dental floss in healthy adults. RESULTS: The authors found no statistically significant difference between the two products with respect to the gingival index or gingival bleeding index after three or six months of use. A one-time product use, at the six-month examination, confirmed the equivalency of the two methods with respect to removal of dental plaque. The oral soft-tissue status of both groups of subjects also remained comparable throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Use of the interdental cleaning device and dental floss resulted in comparable benefits with respect to gingival health and plaque removal. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although it was not shown to be an improvement over dental floss, the cleaning device was comparable in every respect. Since it can be used with one hand and does not require as much dexterity as floss, the device warrants consideration by those who lack the motivation or are unable to use dental floss.
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
Authors: Tina Poklepovic Pericic; Helen V Worthington; Trevor M Johnson; Dario Sambunjak; Pauline Imai; Janet E Clarkson; Peter Tugwell Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Dario Sambunjak; Jason W Nickerson; Tina Poklepovic Pericic; Trevor M Johnson; Pauline Imai; Peter Tugwell; Helen V Worthington Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-23
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