Dental floss as a possible risk for the development of peri‐implant disease: an observational study of 10 cases

Velzen, Frank J. J. van; Lang, Niklaus P.; Schulten, E.A.J.M.; Bruggenkate, C.M. ten

doi:10.1111/clr.12650

Cited by 33 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, it was shown that dental floss may be torn on exposed rough surfaces of implants, promoting plaque retention. Therefore, flossing was identified as a potential risk factor for peri‐implant health (van Velzen, Lang, Schulten, & Ten Bruggenkate, ). However, this disadvantage with flossing could not be confirmed in the current study due to its in vitro design with non‐exposed rough implant surfaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of simulated biofilm at different implant crown designs with interproximal oral hygiene aids: An in vitro study

Tuna

Kuhlmann

Bishti

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the removal of simulated biofilm at two different implant‐supported restoration designs with various interproximal oral hygiene aids. Methods Mandibular models with a missing first molar were fabricated and provided with single implant analogues (centrally or distally placed) and two different crown designs (conventional [CCD] and alternative crown design [ACD]). Occlusion spray was applied to the crowns to simulate artificial biofilm. Thirty participants (dentists, dental hygienists, and laypersons) were equally divided and asked to clean the interproximal areas with five different cleaning devices to further evaluate if there were differences in their cleaning ability. The outcome was measured via standardized photos and the cleaning ratio, representing the cleaned surfaces in relation to the respective crown surface. Statistical analysis was performed by linear mixed‐effects model with fixed effects for cleaning tools, surfaces, crown design and type of participant, and random effects for crowns. Results The mean cleaning ratio for the investigated tools and crown designs were (in%): Super floss: 76 ± 13/ACD and 57 ± 14/CCD (highest cleaning efficiency), followed by dental floss: 66 ± 13/ACD and 56 ± 15/CCD, interdental brush: 55 ± 10/ACD and 45 ± 9/CCD, electric interspace brush: 31 ± 10/ACD and 30 ± 1/CCD, microdroplet floss: 8 ± 9/ACD and 9 ± 8/CCD. There was evidence of an overall effect of each factor “cleaning tool,” “surface,” “crown design,” and “participant” (p < 0.0001). Conclusions ACD allowed more removal of the artificial biofilm than CCD with Super floss, dental floss, and interdental brush. Flossing and interproximal brushing were the most effective cleaning methods. A complete removal of the artificial biofilm could not be achieved in any group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of simulated biofilm at different implant crown designs with interproximal oral hygiene aids: An in vitro study

Tuna

Kuhlmann

Bishti

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,8 Leftover titanium fragments released from dental implants after the use of an ultrasonic instrument have been shown to introduce foreign bodies to the peri-implant space, which may aggravate the situation. 7,8 Leftover titanium fragments released from dental implants after the use of an ultrasonic instrument have been shown to introduce foreign bodies to the peri-implant space, which may aggravate the situation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of peri‐implant mucositis with a chitosan brush—A pilot randomized clinical trial

Wohlfahrt

Aass

Koldsland

2019

Int J Dental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This aim of this study was to evaluate a chitosan brush for the treatment of peri‐implant mucositis. Materials and methods A total of 11 patients with a combined total of 24 dental implants and who were diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis were included in this 6‐month, split mouth, pilot clinical trial. Implants were randomly assigned to either treatment with a chitosan brush using an oscillating dental hand piece or treatment with titanium curettes. Supportive treatment was provided at 3 months. Two calibrated periodontists, blinded to treatment group, performed all examinations, including probing pocket depths (PPD) and bleeding on probing (mBoP). The changes in clinical parameters were compared between groups at 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 6 months. A Mann‐Whitney U test with an alpha level of 0.05 was used for the statistical analyses. Results Both groups demonstrated significant reductions in mBoP between baseline and 6 months. The test implants treated with the chitosan brush had a better improvement in mBoP at 2 weeks and 4 weeks compared to the implants treated with the titanium curettes. The reduction in PPD was significantly better in the test group at 4 weeks. All implants had stable bone levels, as seen on radiographs between baseline and 6 months. Conclusion Reduced signs of inflammation were seen in both groups 6 months after the baseline treatment and 3 months after maintenance. A chitosan brush seems to be a safe and efficient device for debridement of dental implants.

show abstract

“…Thus, suppuration is logically and statistically a sensitive indicator of bone turnover . In this scenario, it must be noted that, if detected in early stages where bone resorption has not occurred yet, it might be a consequence of a foreign body reaction (i.e., residual cement or dental floss remnants) or biofilm …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 In this scenario, it must be noted that, if detected in early stages where bone resorption has not occurred yet, it might be a consequence of a foreign body reaction (i.e., residual cement or dental floss remnants) or biofilm. 25,26 Therefore, although the use of clinical parameters with radiological proof of bone changes represents a "gold standard", the diagnostic value of clinical parameters of implants is still controversially reported and not well defined. 10 Standardization of the diagnostic parameter implies well defined methodological approach intended to estimate the accuracy, precision, sensitivity and specificity of the parameter to distinguish different states of the target tissue or organ.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical parameters to monitor peri‐implant conditions: A matched case‐control study

Monje

Caballé‐Serrano

Nart

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diagnosis of peri-implant diseases cannot rely solely upon individual clinical parameters but rather require a combination of criteria. The clinical parameters, particularly probing depth, might accurately discern between diagnoses among peri-implant conditions. Nevertheless, the specificity of the clinical parameters surpasses the sensitivity in the detection of peri-implant diseases, validating its potential use as a diagnostic tool.

show abstract

Dental floss as a possible risk for the development of peri‐implant disease: an observational study of 10 cases

Abstract: In case of exposed rough surfaces of the dental implant, the peri-implant conditions may be jeopardized by the application of dental floss, and hence, the utilization of interproximal brushes or toothpicks may be preferred for daily home care practices.

Cited by 33 publications

References 16 publications

Removal of simulated biofilm at different implant crown designs with interproximal oral hygiene aids: An in vitro study

Removal of simulated biofilm at different implant crown designs with interproximal oral hygiene aids: An in vitro study

Treatment of peri‐implant mucositis with a chitosan brush—A pilot randomized clinical trial

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical parameters to monitor peri‐implant conditions: A matched case‐control study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About