Background: Interdental rubber picks (IRP) have become a frequent and convenient alternative for interdental cleaning. However, only little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of newer designs available on the market. Therefore, a new in vitro model was evaluated to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE), as well as the force needed for insertion and during the use of IRP, with high reproducibility. Methods: Five different sizes of commercially marketed IRP with elastomeric fingers (IRP-F) (GUM SOFT-PICKS® Advanced, Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, Schönau, Germany) or slats (IRP-S) (TePe EasyPick™, TePe D-A-CH GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre−/post brushing situations at interdental areas (standardized cleaning, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. Forces were registered with a load cell [N]. Results: IRP-F have to be inserted with significant higher forces of 3.2 ± 1.8 N compared to IRP-S (2.0 ± 1.6 N; p < 0.001) independent of the size and type of artificial interdental area. During cleaning process IRP-S showed significantly lower values for pushing/pulling (1.0 ± 0.8 N/0.5 ± 0.4 N) compared to IRP-F (1.6 ± 0.8 N/0.7 ± 0.3 N; p < 0.001) concomitant to significantly lower ECE (19.1 ± 9.8 vs. 21.7 ± 10.0%, p = 0.002). Highest ECE was measured with largest size of IRP-F/IRP-S independent the morphology of interdental area. Conclusions: New interdental cleaning aids can be tested by the new experimental setup supported by 3D printing technology. Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IRP-F cleaned more effectively at higher forces compared to IRP-S.

Background Interdental brushes (IDB) are according to the actual evidence the first choice for cleaning interdental areas (IDR). Their size should be chosen individually according to the IDR morphology. However, interdental rubber picks (IRP) are appreciated better by the patients and are hence becoming more and more popular but the evidence regarding their efficacy is still limited. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during the use of interdental brushes versus newer wireless types with rubber filaments (IRP), both fitted and non-fitted for different IDR. Methods The medium size of a conical IRP (regular, ISO 2) with elastomeric fingers versus four sizes (ISO 1, 2, 3, 4) of cylindric IDB with nylon filaments (all Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to three different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at IDR (standardized, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N]. Results Overall, a higher ECE was recorded for IDB compared to IRP (58.3 ± 14.9% versus 18.4 ± 10.1%; p < 0.001). ECE significantly depended on the fitting of the IDB. ECE was significant higher in isosceles triangle compared to concave and convex IDR for both IDB and IRP (p ≤ 0.001). ECF was lower for IDB (0.6 ± 0.4N) compared to IRP (0.8 ± 0.5N; p ≤ 0.001). ECE in relation to ECF increases with smaller IDB. For IRP highest values of ECF were found in the smallest IDR. Conclusions Within the limitations of an in vitro study, size fitted IDB cleaned more effectively at lower forces compared to conical IRP.

Objectives Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators’ experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how effectively they learn to use curettes (GRA) and sonic scalers (AIR); hypothesizing that AIR will result in higher relative cleaning efficacy (RCE) than GRA. Material and methods Before baseline evaluation (T0), 30 operators (9 males, 21 females) received a 2-h theoretical lesson for both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly digitized training program for 45 min. During three sessions (T1–T3), the operators had to instrument six equivalent test teeth with GRA and AIR. At T0–T3, treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (RCE-b), and hard deposits (RCE-d) were measured. Results At T0, RCE-b was in mean(SD) 64.18(25.74) % for GRA, 62.25(26.69) % for AIR; (p = 0.172) and RCE-d 85.48(12.32) %/ 65.71(15.27) % (p < 0.001). At T3, operators reached highest RCE-b in both groups (GRA/AIR 71.54(23.90) %/71.75(23.05)%; p = 0.864); RCE-d GRA/AIR: 84.68(16.84) %/77.85(13.98) %; p < 0.001). Both groups achieved shorter treatment times after training. At T3, using curettes was faster (GRA/AIR 16.67(3.31) min/19.80(4.52) min; p < 0.001). Conclusions After systematic digitized training, untrained operators were able to clean 70% of the root surfaces with curettes and sonic scalers. Clinical relevance It can be concluded that a systematic digitized and interactive training program in manikin heads is helpful in the training of root surface debridement.

No abstract

Background Sufficient biofilm removal in the furcation area (FA) is a major challenge in the clinical practice of supportive periodontal therapy. The aim of the present experimental study was to simulate subgingival cleaning of the FA using a powered scaler (sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (US)) for conventional mechanical debridement versus two air polishing with nonabrasive powder (LAPA-1: glycine powder, LAPA-2: erythritol powder) and different nozzles for supra-/subgingival cleaning for each device. Methods Seven trained and calibrated operators with ≥ 2 years each of professional experience in treating periodontitis used the instruments to clean 3D-printed replicas of six molars with through-and-through FA (four 3-rooted and two 2-rooted teeth) in a manikin head. AIR and US were used in the control group; air polishing instruments were used in the test group. For reproducible evaluation, the test teeth were separated vertically into two or three parts, illuminated with ultraviolet light, photographed and evaluated planimetrically. Treatment time (TrT, in s) and relative cleaning efficacy (RCE, in %) were measured. Results Overall, 3-rooted molars (RCE in the entire FA, 23.19 ± 20.98%) could be cleaned significantly less effectively than 2-rooted molars (53.04 ± 28.45%, p < 0.001), regardless of the instrument used. In the cleaning of the entire FA, significantly higher RCE values were achieved with conventional mechanical debridement (AIR/US: 46.04 ± 25.96%/39.63 ± 22.02%; AIR vs. US: p > 0.05) than with air polishing (LAPA-1/LAPA-2: 34.06 ± 29.48%/17.09 ± 18.85%; LAPA-1 vs. LAPA-2: p < 0.001) regardless of whether a supra- or subgingival cleaning nozzle used (p < 0.001). Only LAPA-1 with a subgingival nozzle showed RCE values comparable to those of US (41.07 ± 28.95% vs. 39.63 ± 22.02%, p > 0.05). TrT was longest for US (299.40 ± 120.69 s) and shortest for LAPA-1 with a supragingival nozzle (129.67 ± 60.92 s, p < 0.001). Conclusions All of the examined instruments were effective to some degree in removing the simulated biofilm from the FA, but they differed substantially in cleaning efficacy. Only one air polishing device (LAPA-1) with a rigid subgingival nozzle was able to achieve RCE values similar to those of US. The current investigation confirmed that conventional mechanical debridement with powered scalers were most effective, but treatment took longer with these devices than air polishing.