Interdental plaque reduction after use of different devices in young subjects with intact papilla: A randomized clinical trial

Graziani, Filippo; Palazzolo, Antonino; Gennai, Stefano; Karapetsa, Dimitra; Giuca,; Cei, Silvia; Filice, Natalia; Petrini, Morena; Nisi, Marco

doi:10.1111/idh.12318

Cited by 43 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although, interdental cleaning with wood sticks can significantly reduce bleeding on probing and gingivitis, they do not reduce plaque parameters [5,6]. More controversially discussed are the recently developed interdental rubber picks, which seem to be able to reduce plaque but data for gingivitis are inconsistent [7,8]. Hence it's not surprising that a currently published Cochrane review did not find any difference by very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental rubber picks [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies mainly attributed the lack of efficacy of flossing to manual complexity of the technique and/or to the lack of patients' compliance [15]. On the other hand, in a recent study which conducted in young subjects without interdental attachment loss, toothbrushing in combination with flossing was reported to be capable of both plaque and gingival inflammation reduction [16].…”

Section: Dental Flossmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, Graziani et al [16] conducted a RCT to evaluate the efficacy of different adjunctively used interdental cleaning devices in unsupervised participants with intact interdental papilla. Sixty subjects were randomized to four groups with different oral hygiene regimens as manual toothbrushing alone; manual toothbrushing plus dental floss; manual toothbrushing plus IDB; and manual toothbrushing plus RIB.…”

Section: Rubber Interdental Bristlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of the Mechanical Interdental Plaque Control in the Management of Periodontal Health: How Many Options Do We Have?

Kuru¹,

Kuka²,

Tunar³

2019

Gingival Disease - A Professional Approach for Treatment and Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Untreated caries and severe periodontal disease are the most frequently encountered reasons for the tooth loss in adult population all over the world, which leads to reduced quality of life. For many years, a plethora of studies revealed the fundamental role of the microorganisms in oral biofilm in the development of caries and periodontal destruction. The primary means of oral biofilm control are through mechanical action. Although toothbrushing removes biofilm from the buccal, oral, and occlusal surfaces, it does not reach efficiently into the interdental areas. Today, several interdental cleaning devices are available over the counter for individual needs. On the other hand, this variety may be confusing for the patients to choose the right device for themselves. Therefore, dental professionals are responsible to guide their patients according to their specific needs with an evidence-based approach. Since direct evidence for the relation of interdental cleaning and periodontal disease prevention is on research, there is still a need for randomized controlled studies on interdental cleaning to increase the strength of evidence. From this standpoint, the aim of this chapter is to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of different interdental cleaning devices regarding in vitro and in vivo aspects together with patient preference and acceptance.

show abstract

“…(2016), межзубные ершики в сочетании с мануальной зубной щеткой позволяют значительно уменьшить кровоточивость межзубного сосочка при чистке зубов [10]. При этом исследователи отмечают, что ершики эффективнее флоссов как в отношении зубного налета, так и в отношении кровоточивости [11,12]. Однако для обеспечения качественного удаления биопленки в межзубном промежутке необходимо предварительно определять индивидуальный размер ершика [13].…”

Section: результаты и обсуждениеunclassified

Comparison of interdental oral hygiene aids efficiency in patients with healthy periodontium: a split-mouth study

Makeeva

Budaychieva

Turkina

et al. 2018

Stomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Качественное удаление биопленки является одной из основ профилактики стоматологических заболеваний, так как именно микроорганизмы являются причиной разви-© Коллектив авторов, 2018 тия кариеса зубов и заболеваний пародонта [1-3]. Самым доступным для пациента способом воздействия на биопленку является механическое удаление ее с поверхности зубов с помощью зубной щетки. Однако в некоторых участках зубного ряда, в частности на апроксимальных поверхностях зубов, зубная щетка оказывается недостаточно эффективной. Именно поэтому наиболее патогенная микроб

show abstract

Interdental plaque reduction after use of different devices in young subjects with intact papilla: A randomized clinical trial

Cited by 43 publications

References 25 publications

New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas

New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas

Role of the Mechanical Interdental Plaque Control in the Management of Periodontal Health: How Many Options Do We Have?

Comparison of interdental oral hygiene aids efficiency in patients with healthy periodontium: a split-mouth study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About