Investigation of the Safety and Effectiveness of an Oral Irrigating Device

Meklas, John F.; Stewart, Jack L.

doi:10.1902/jop.1972.43.7.441

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Oral tissue assessments and participants’ diaries are the primary methods to assess the safety of OIs [ 12 ]. In healthy people, OIs generally cause no or only minor adverse events, such as oral lacerations [ 24 ]. However, OIs could generate water jets with high fluid shear stress and high impact pressure to detach dental biofilms [ 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Efficacy and Safety of Oral Irrigator on the Control of Dental Plaque and Gingivitis: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial

Ren

Cheng

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral irrigator (OI) in controlling dental plaque and gingivitis. Methods: Ninety participants diagnosed with gingivitis were randomly assigned to two groups, given a toothbrush combined with OI (WaterPik®) (test) or a toothbrush alone (control). The Turesky-Modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (T-QH), Modified Gingival Index (MGI), Bleeding Index (BI), and percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP%) were evaluated at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. The full analysis set (FAS) and per-protocol set (PPS) were analyzed. Adverse events were recorded through electronic diaries and examinations. Results: Of the 90 participants, the efficacy was assessed in the following numbers (FAS/PPS): test (45/33) and control (43/38). Compared with the control, MGI, BI, and BOP% were significantly lower in the test group after 4 weeks (4 weeks: p = 0.017, p = 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively; 8 weeks and 12 weeks: p < 0.001 for all, FAS); T-QH was significantly lower after 8 weeks (8 weeks: p = 0.033; 12 weeks: p = 0.006, FAS). Transient gingival bleeding may be associated with OI. Self-reported pain and dentin hypersensitivity symptoms were similar between groups. Conclusions: As adjuncts to toothbrushing, OI demonstrated significantly better efficacy in controlling dental plaque and gingival inflammation with no substantial safety hazards.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Efficacy and Safety of Oral Irrigator on the Control of Dental Plaque and Gingivitis: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial

Ren

Cheng

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twelve studies assessed the effects on calculus. Five found no effect (Gupta, O'Toole, and Hammermeister 1973 ; Hoover, Robinson, and Billingsley 1968 ; Lainson, Bergquist, and Fraleigh 1970 , 1972 ; Meklas and Stewart 1972 ). Three showed decreased calculus with water irrigation (Hoover and Robinson 1971 ; Kim, Yoo, et al 2023 ; Lobene 1969 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Oral Irrigation Devices: A Scoping Review

Sarkisova,

Morse,

Lee

et al. 2024

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesSelf‐performed oral hygiene is essential for preventing dental caries, periodontal, and peri‐implant diseases. Oral irrigators are adjunctive oral home care aids that may benefit oral health. However, the effects of oral irrigation on oral health, its role in oral home care, and its mechanism of action are not fully understood. A comprehensive search of the literature revealed no existing broad scoping reviews on oral irrigators. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on oral irrigation devices and identify evidence gaps.MethodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines were utilized to prepare the review. Four databases and eight gray literature sources were searched for English publications across any geographical location or setting.ResultsTwo hundred and seventy‐five sources were included, predominantly from scientific journals and academic settings. Most studies originated from North America. Research primarily involved adults, with limited studies in children and adolescents. Oral irrigation was safe and well‐accepted when used appropriately. It reduced periodontal inflammation, potentially by modulating the oral microbiota, but further research needs to clarify its mechanism of action. Promising results were reported in populations with dental implants and special needs. Patient acceptance appeared high, but standardized patient‐reported outcome measures were rarely used. Anti‐inflammatory benefits occurred consistently across populations and irrigant solutions. Plaque reduction findings were mixed, potentially reflecting differences in study designs and devices.ConclusionsOral irrigators reduce periodontal inflammation, but their impact on plaque removal remains unclear. Well‐designed, sufficiently powered trials of appropriate duration need to assess the clinical, microbiological, and inflammatory responses of the periodontium to oral irrigation, particularly those with periodontitis, dental implants, and special needs. Patient‐reported outcome measures, costs, caries prevention, and environmental impact of oral irrigation need to be compared to other oral hygiene aids.

show abstract

“…With 10 guidelines in front of readers the references reported now can be classified. Problems of selection and assignment to study-group and controls will be found in the studies by A r~~i m ,~.~ Cantor and Stahl, lo 36 Arnim, 5, 6 Feinstone,l8 Dunkin,I6 and Crumley and SumnerI3 used no controls in their studies.…”

Section: An Evaluation Of Irrigating Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%