Clinical and biochemical evaluation of oral irrigation in patients with peri-implant mucositis: a randomized clinical trial

Tutuncuoglu, S O; Çetinkaya, Burcu Özkan; Pamuk, Ferda; Avcı, Bahattin; Keleş, Gonca Çayır; Bayrakdar, Sevda Kurt; Lütfioğlu, Müge

doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04044-x

Cited by 8 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our bleeding on probing ndings were also lower at the 4th week in those who use OIs compared to those using an IB, supporting our GI scores and the results of the recent studies [10,13,17,[30][31][32]. It was proven in these studies that interproximal areas are much more convenient for the initiation and progression of periodontal diseases compared to the buccal and lingual areas [34,35].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Therefore, mechanical interdental devices such as dental oss, interdental brushes (IBs), tooth cleaning sticks, and water pressure devices (oral irrigators, OIs) are advertised to be used in addition to the toothbrush to keep oral hygiene at the highest level. Although there is a wide range of alternatives for interdental cleaning, it is still unclear which device is superior to others [6, 9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…OIs, one of the auxiliary devices for daily oral care, direct the water on the teeth and orthodontic devices with a certain pressure and pulsation to remove plaque and debris from the teeth and soft tissues [10][11][12]. OI was shown to reduce dental plaque, calculus, gingivitis, bleeding, host in ammatory mediators, and pathogenic bacteria counts [13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…OI was shown to reduce dental plaque, calculus, gingivitis, bleeding, host in ammatory mediators, and pathogenic bacteria counts [13][14][15][16][17][18]. The pulsating action of an OI creates a compression and decompression phases of the gingival tissue, allowing the water or other solutions to reach the subgingival and interdental areas around the tooth and this action effectively removes plaque, bacteria, and debris [1,10,19,20]. There is also Cochrane Library-based evidence that OI combined with toothbrush especially reduce gingivitis compared to tooth brushing alone in the short term.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Human Randomized Controlled Trail Clinical and Biochemical Evaluation Oral Irrigator Effectiveness in Patients Under Orthodontic Treatment

Şahin

Çetinkaya

Avcı

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of oral irrigator (OI) with interdental brush (IB) clinically and biochemically in orthodontic patients. Materials and Methods Thirty patients were randomly divided into two equal groups; patients using OI in addition to manuel brushing (OI-group), patients using IB in addition to manual brushing (IB-group). The data was collected in the baseline, 2nd, 4th and 8th weeks. Periodontal indexes were recorded clinically and interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-10, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1, MMP-8 levels in gingival crevicular fluid were evaluated biochemically. Results The gingival index and bleeding on probing values at the 8th week and plaque index values at the 2nd, 4th and 8th weeks were found to be statistically lower in the OI-group compared to IB-group. IL-1β total and concentration values at the 2nd week, MMP-8 total and concentration values at the 4th and 8th weeks were statistically lower in the OI-group compared to IB-group. There were no significant differences in MMP-1 and IL-10 total and concentration values between the groups at any time interval of the study. Conclusions The result of our study showed that usage of oral irrigator in addition to toothbrush appears to be as effective as interdental brush in patients under orthodontic treatment. Clinical Revelance There is limited information about OI’s using in orthodontic patients. The results of this study showed that oral irrigators can be used as an alternative oral care device for the interdental cleaning (NCT05562986).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Human Randomized Controlled Trail Clinical and Biochemical Evaluation Oral Irrigator Effectiveness in Patients Under Orthodontic Treatment

Şahin

Çetinkaya

Avcı

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Oral irrigators have often been used in addition to tooth brushing and shown to be effective in reducing oral biofilm, clinical periodontal indexes, and host inflammatory mediators by reducing proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1 β and PGE2) in the gingival crevicular fluid [ 38 , 39 ]. Tutuncuoglu et al assessed the efficacy of oral irrigation in PiM patients and concluded that the use of an oral irrigator can be as effective as an interdental brush in interdental cleaning [ 40 ]. Consistent with our meta-analysis, oral irrigation of CHX would result in better plaque control and better resolution of PiM, compared with other types such as CHX mouth-rinse or CHX gel.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjunctive Use of Active Compounds such as Chlorhexidine in the Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis for Oral Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhao

Liu

et al. 2022

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is characterized as a reversible inflammatory change of the peri-implant soft tissues without alveolar bone loss or continuing marginal bone loss. Without proper control of PiM, the reversible inflammation may advance to peri-implantitis (PI). Mechanical debridement (MD) by the implant surface is the most common and conventional nonsurgical approach to treat PiM but with limitations in complete resolution of diseases. For more than a decade, chlorhexidine (CHX) and active compounds has been investigated in the treatment of PiM. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of CHX treatment in combination with MD versus MD alone or MD+placebo in patients with PiM on their oral health problems. Methods. A search using electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search up to May 2022 were performed independently by 2 reviewers and included eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD+CHX versus MD alone or MD+placebo. The assessment of quality for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Disease resolution of PiM (absence of BOP), IPPD reduction, IBOP% reduction, and PI% reduction after treatment as primary outcomes were selected as the primary outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was for dichotomous outcomes using random effect models. This review is registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020221989). Results. After independent screening, nine eligible studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed OR of disease resolution between test and control groups amounted to 1.41 (95% CI (0.43, 4.65), P = 0.57 , I 2 = 65 % ) not favoring adjunctive CHX treatment over MD alone. Through subgroup analysis, the results indicated that oral irrigation of CHX may have more benefits on the resolution of PiM. Similarly, CHX did not significantly improve IPPD reduction at both short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Only a short-term effect has been observed at IBOP% reduction ( WMD = 13.88 , 95% CI (10.94, 16.81), P < 0.00001 , I 2 = 9 % ), IPI reduction ( WMD = 0.12 , 95% CI (0.09, 0.14), P < 0.00001 , I 2 = 0 % ), and FMPPD reduction ( WMD = 0.19 mm, 95% CI (0.03, 0.35), P = 0.02 , I 2 = 0 % ) with adjunctive CHX application. Conclusion. Adjunctive CHX application may have some benefits to improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment by reducing IBOP%, IPI, and FMPPD in short-term. But these benefits disappeared at medium- and long-term follow-up. In order to achieve better disease resolution of PiM, adjunctive CHX irrigation with MD may be suggested and has positive potential. Well-designed large clinical trials are needed in future.

show abstract

Efficacy of power‐driven interdental cleaning tools: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Edlund

Bertl

Pandis

et al. 2022

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools (PDICTs) as an adjunct to tooth brushing compared to tooth brushing alone or tooth brushing combined with any other non-PDICT in terms of interproximal plaque and gingival bleeding reduction in gingivitis patients. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in three databases until March 20, 2022 with the following main eligibility criteria: (1) randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with (2) at least 28 days of follow-up in (3) gingivitis patients. Interproximal plaque and bleeding values were defined as the primary outcome variables and used for pair-wise meta-analyses. Results: Sixteen RCTs were identified including data from 1258 participants at the final evaluation. Eight studies each investigated the effect of either a liquid-based or mechanical PDICT; one of these studies tested additionally a combined liquid-based and mechanical PDICT. Tooth brushing combined with a liquid-based PDICT compared to tooth brushing alone did not result in better interproximal plaque values but in significantly lower interproximal bleeding values. Tooth brushing combined with either a liquid-based PDICT or with a mechanical PDICT compared to tooth brushing and flossing achieved comparable interproximal plaque and bleeding values. The majority of studies reporting on patient compliance/preference favored the use of a PDICT, and except for a single study, which was reporting soft tissue trauma in two subjects from improper use of a mechanical PDICT, none of the studies reported adverse events.Conclusions: Daily use of PDICT as an adjunct to tooth brushing significantly reduces interproximal bleeding.

show abstract

Clinical and biochemical evaluation of oral irrigation in patients with peri-implant mucositis: a randomized clinical trial

Cited by 8 publications

References 43 publications

Human Randomized Controlled Trail Clinical and Biochemical Evaluation Oral Irrigator Effectiveness in Patients Under Orthodontic Treatment

Human Randomized Controlled Trail Clinical and Biochemical Evaluation Oral Irrigator Effectiveness in Patients Under Orthodontic Treatment

Adjunctive Use of Active Compounds such as Chlorhexidine in the Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis for Oral Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of power‐driven interdental cleaning tools: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About