Efficacy of straight versus angled interdental brushes on interproximal tooth cleaning: a randomized controlled trial

Mechanical plaque removal in step-1 of care

Maintaining a regular oral hygiene routine is essential for taking care of our mouths, ensuring healthy teeth, and achieving fresh breath. Patient education on oral hygiene is an important component of their overall treatment. Firstly, patients should be informed about the direct connection between bacteria in dental plaque and oral diseases. It is important for patients to understand that these conditions can be treated, but the success of treatment greatly depends on their level of oral hygiene. This journey begins by selecting the appropriate toothbrush and mastering the correct brushing technique to effectively remove dental plaque while avoiding any potential damage to the gums. In addition to toothbrushes, there are other devices available for comprehensive dental cleaning, such as floss, interdental sticks, interdental brushes, and oral irrigators. These aids are particularly beneficial for eliminating dental plaque from hard-to-reach areas. Moreover, tongue brushing or tongue scraping can effectively reduce breath odor and tongue coating. Currently, self-care recommendations for dental implants are primarily based on existing knowledge regarding natural teeth cleaning. Evidence-based recommendations are derived from comprehensive systematic evaluation of various oral hygiene aids.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Oral Hygiene Aids in Maintaining Periodontal Health in Patients With Gingivitis

Background Gingivitis is a common oral health condition characterized by inflammation of the gingiva, which, if left untreated, can progress to more severe forms of periodontal disease. Effective oral hygiene practices play a crucial role in managing gingivitis, but the comparative efficacy of different oral hygiene aids remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of various oral hygiene aids in maintaining periodontal health in patients with gingivitis, considering gender and the degree of gingivitis as potential influencing factors. Methods A total of 120 participants with gingivitis were enrolled in this study. The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups, each utilizing a different oral hygiene aid: Group A (toothbrush), Group B (electric toothbrush), Group C (brushing along with the use of an interdental brush), and Group D (brushing along with the use of a water flosser). All participants received toothpaste for use with their respective oral hygiene aids. Periodontal health parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) score, were assessed at baseline and after a specified duration of oral hygiene intervention. Also, the microbial count for Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium, and Veillonella species was evaluated. Results No significant differences in periodontal health outcomes were observed between males and females in any of the oral hygiene aid groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found among the mild, moderate, and severe gingivitis groups within each oral hygiene aid group. The microbial count also has no statistical significance except for streptococcus species. These findings indicate that the efficacy of the tested oral hygiene aids was comparable across genders and different degrees of gingivitis. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that the tested oral hygiene aids were effective in maintaining periodontal health in patients with gingivitis, irrespective of gender and the degree of gingivitis. These results have implications for oral healthcare professionals in their recommendations to patients regarding oral hygiene practices. However, it is important to consider the limitations of this study, including the relatively small sample size and the specific oral hygiene aids tested.

Efficacy of dental floss with ellipsoidal knots vs conventional dental floss for plaque removal: A split-mouth randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical efficacy for plaque removal between dental floss with soft ellipsoidal knots and conventional floss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied 33 university students (29 females and 4 males, 13 of them undergraduate/postgraduate students of dentistry), including regular and sporadic (less once/wk) users of dental floss, with interproximal spaces ≤1 mm, who used floss with and without knots in a randomized manner following a split-mouth design. The Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) by Rustogi et al. was applied to determine the total removed plaque (TPI) and that removed in the gingival area (GPI) and interproximal spaces (IPI).

RESULTS

The reduction in GPI was greater with the knotted vs conventional floss in all cases (14.77 ± 12.38; 64.79% vs 17.38 ± 13.66; 57.51%) and especially among no floss users (12.469 ± 10.98; 68.02% vs 15.833 ± 11.88; 58.55%). No statistically significant difference between floss types was found in TPI and IPI (globally or by floss utilization frequency) or in the mean GPI of floss users.

CONCLUSION

Floss with ellipsoidal knots showed similar efficacy to remove plaque in patients with less experience of flossing (but without statistically significant differences) compared with flossing themselves with conventional floss, and it may be an optimal solution for patients starting to use dental floss and for those with a lesser or only sporadic history of floss utilization.

Contemporary practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease

It is well established that dental plaque on teeth leads to gingivitis and periodontitis, and that several mechanical and chemical methods of plaque control can prevent gingivitis. The aim of the current review is to summarize and synthesize the available scientific evidence supporting practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal diseases. Evidence for contemporary practices of mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease relies on studies of gingivitis patients. General recommendations concerning the ideal oral hygiene devices and procedures are still inconclusive. However, toothbrushing and interdental cleaning remain the mainstays of prevention of periodontal diseases. The primary approach requires individually tailored instruction for implementation of a systematic oral hygiene regimen.

Effect of interdental brush design on plaque during nonsurgical periodontal therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the interproximal cleaning efficacy of waist-shaped compared with straight soft interdental brushes in patients undergoing nonsurgical periodontal therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients diagnosed with periodontitis stage II or III were scheduled for nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Baseline plaque control record (PCR), modified approximal plaque index (API), papillary bleeding index (PBI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were evaluated. Four interdental spaces of equal sizes were determined, and baseline plaque indices (PI) were assessed on eight surfaces of the respective adjacent teeth, resulting in 640 measuring positions. Interdental brushes with a straight or waist-shaped design were randomly allocated to the right or left side, and patients received oral hygiene instructions. Follow-up measurements including PCR, API, PBI, and site-specific PI were performed during initial nonsurgical periodontal therapy sessions and reevaluation which was undertaken 8 weeks afterwards.

RESULTS

PCR, API, and PBI decreased significantly compared with baseline at each time point (p < 0.001). PPD (waist-shaped, baseline 4 mm (range, 2-9 mm) vs. reevaluation 3 mm (range, 1-6 mm); p < 0.001; straight, baseline 4 mm (range, 2-10) vs. reevaluation 3 mm (range, 1-6) mm; p < 0.001) and BOP (p = 0.008) showed significant reduction in both groups. Sub-analysis of site-specific areas including line angles and interproximal areas revealed no significant reduction of plaque during the observation period between both brush designs. No difference between straight and waist-shaped brushes regarding PPD or BOP decrease was found.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of both interdental brush designs concerning plaque control in patients undergoing nonsurgical periodontal therapy was similar.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of interdental brushes is essential for biofilm removal in patients during initial periodontal therapy, regardless of brush design.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTNregistry (#ISRCTN24498365), http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN24498365.

GoPerio - impact of a personalized video and an automated two-way text-messaging system in oral hygiene motivation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Oral hygiene is of paramount importance for the preservation of oral health, and for patients affected by periodontal disease establishing an effective oral hygiene routine is the first step of therapy. Several clinical frameworks have been developed to foster behavior change, such as motivational interviewing. However, two obstacles can be identified. First, patients tend to forget the advice they were given during the consultation. Second, it is hard to maintain motivation in the long term, thus leading to relapse. An innovative eHealth solution was designed with the aim to tackle both obstacles and supplement the current clinical standard of care. The primary objective is to compare the full mouth plaque scores of study groups (eHealth plus standard of care versus standard of care only) at 8 weeks of follow up. The main secondary objective is to compare the full mouth bleeding score at 8 weeks of follow up.

Methods/design

The “GoPerio” study is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial assessing the impact of a novel eHealth concept for oral hygiene motivation (personalized video of oral hygiene routine available for the patient via a cloud server plus interactive text messages) in addition to the current standard of care (motivational interviewing plus tooth scaling and polishing). The minimum sample size required is 86 patients. Participants will be randomized (allocation ratio 1:1): test group (eHealth plus standard of care) versus control group (standard of care only). The primary outcome is oral hygiene as measured by the full mouth (six sites per tooth) plaque control record (PCR) index. The main secondary outcome is gingival inflammation as measured by the full mouth (six sites per tooth) bleeding on probing (BOP) index. Both the primary and the main secondary outcomes are evaluated by blinded and calibrated examiners at 8 weeks of follow up. The other secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction and patient behavior change and motivation.

Discussion

The study will investigate the value of an innovative eHealth approach to strengthen patient motivation for oral hygiene. If proven effective, such an approach would supplement the current clinical standard of care, resulting in improved clinical outcomes with negligible impact on productivity in a dental practice.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03109808. Registered on 12 April 2017.

Sponsor: Hospices Civils de Lyon. BP 2251, 3 quai des Célestins, 69,229 Lyon cedex 02.

Protocol version: 1.0 as of 21 September 2016.

An Overview of Different Interdental Cleaning Aids and Their Effectiveness

Optimisation of plaque control is essential for the success of non-surgical and surgical periodontal therapy. This cannot be achieved with brushing alone; hence, there is a need for adjunctive interdental cleaning aids. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of different interdental cleaning aids and review the literature for consensus on their effectiveness. A literature search of articles in English, up to December 2018, was conducted in Pubmed. High-quality flossing is difficult to achieve, and ineffective routine use of floss may not confer significant benefits over brushing alone. Interdental brushes are more effective than brushing as a monotherapy. They are at least as good if not superior to floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis. Although they are effective for patients regardless of their periodontal status (healthy or active), they are especially indicated in periodontal patients where widened embrasures are common. Added benefits include ease of use, patient acceptance, and recontouring of interdental tissues. Rubberpiks do not demonstrate inferiority to conventional interdental brushes. Wooden interdental aids appear to offer no significant advantage over brushing with respect to plaque removal; they may, however, reduce gingival bleeding. Oral irrigators are a promising tool for reducing gingival inflammation, despite minimal changes to plaque levels. For cleaning around dental implants, oral irrigators and interdental brushes are preferred over floss.

Comparison of two interdental cleaning aids: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

The aim of this study was a comparison of the handling and acceptance of two kinds of interdental brushes (interdental brush with a handle [HB] and a newly invented interdental cleaning device [NB]).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In a randomized crossover trial, 40 test subjects with an average number of 23.5 interdental areas were examined. At two appointments with a "washout" period of one week, the volunteers tried out both cleaning tools (HB and NB). They were asked to clean as many interdental spaces as possible. The percentage of spaces, which could be reached, is the IRI (Interdental Reachability Index). Furthermore, subjective impressions were determined.

RESULTS

The average IRI using HB was 64% compared to 80% using of NB (P<.001); 62.5% of the volunteers found the cleaning with HB painful and 15% the cleaning with NB. The subjective feeling after cleaning was 1.75 with NB compared to 2.2 with HB (P=.015), grading the feeling, from 1 for "very good" to 5 for "poor." The acceptance of regular interdental hygiene was rated 1.95 in the case of the NB and 2.85 in the case of the HB. After both appointments, the test subjects declared that they would use the NB 3.05 times and the HB 1.78 times a week.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the test subjects reached more interdental spaces with NB than with the HB. NB can improve the usage of interdental brushes. Regarding subjective comfort, participants also favoured NB over HB.

Effectiveness of flossing loops in the control of the gingival health

Background

One of the key factor in the good condition of periodontal tissues is their daily hygiene. Oral hygiene techniques such brushing and a good interdental hygiene by correct flossing are very important. The aim of this study is to compare the use of dental floss in a loop vs traditional floss in the control of Loe-Silness Gingival Index (IG), Turesky´s Plaque Index (IPT), Gingival Bleeding Index (IS) and the values of interleukin 6 (IL-6) and interleukin 8 (IL-8).

Material and Methods

A comparative study of 40 patients in which each patient was his own control, using during 45 days each one of the devices (new loop floss and conventional floss) of interdental hygiene analysed. Data for Loe-Silness Gingival Index (IG), Turesky´s Plaque Index (IPT), Gingival Bleeding Index (IS) and the values of interleukin 6 (IL-6) and interleukin 8 (IL-8)were collected and measured in every visit for every type of interdental hygiene device.

Results

Our data indicates that the rate of Turesky´s Plaque Index presented statistically significant differences between groups (loop: 1.66 ± 0.8; traditional: 1.12 ± 0.8; p<0.0001). The rest of the indices studied showed no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions

The creation of new dental floss designs try to make their use easier and more sensitive, and plaque removal more effective. The loop design can facilitate interdental hygiene, reaching similar effectiveness than traditional floss, improving some indicators, such as Turesky´s Plaque Index.

Key words:Dental floss, bacterial plaque, loop floss, plaque index, periodontal diseases.

Efficacy of inter-dental mechanical plaque control in managing gingivitis--a meta-review

FOCUSED QUESTION

What is the effect of mechanical inter-dental plaque removal in addition to toothbrushing, on managing gingivitis using various formats of inter-dental self-care in adults based on evidence gathered from existing systematic reviews?

MATERIAL & METHODS

Three Internet sources were searched by a strategy designed to include systematic reviews on inter-dental cleaning devices. Plaque and gingivitis scores were the primary parameters of interest. Characteristics of selected papers were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the acquired evidence was graded.

RESULTS

Screening of 395 papers resulted in six systematic reviews. Two papers evaluated the efficacy of dental floss, two of inter-dental brushes (IDB), one of woodsticks and one of the oral irrigator. Weak evidence of unclear or small magnitude was retrieved that supported dental floss, woodsticks and the oral irrigator to reduce gingivitis in addition to toothbrushing. No concomitant evidence for an effect on plaque emerged. There is moderate evidence that IDBs in combination with toothbrushing reduce both plaque and gingivitis.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that inter-dental cleaning with IDBs is the most effective method for inter-dental plaque removal. The majority of available studies fail to demonstrate that flossing is generally effective in plaque removal. All investigated devices for inter-dental self-care seem to support the management of gingivitis, however, to a varying extend.

The effectiveness of conically shaped compared with cylindrically shaped interdental brushes - a randomized controlled clinical trial

AIM

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of conically shaped versus cylindrically shaped interdental brushes (IDB) in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Periodontal maintenance patients volunteered to be enrolled into this randomized controlled examiner-blind parallel study. At baseline and after 3 months, plaque scores, bleeding upon pocket probing scores and probing pocket depth (PPD) were assessed. The type of IDB (conical or cylindrical) was randomly assigned to each patient and individual instruction was provided regarding the method of use and the appropriate size. Only those approximal sites that had sufficient space for the IDB were eligible, and for those sites the data were analysed separately. Analyses were performed for all eligible approximal surfaces and a sub-analysis was performed for vestibular and lingual surfaces.

RESULTS

In total, 51 participants attended the baseline and the 3-month clinical appointments. Overall, there was no difference between conical and cylindrical IDBs. However, the conical IDB showed significantly higher plaque and bleeding scores at the lingual approximal sites. The cause of this difference was an increase in plaque and bleeding scores compared with baseline. With respect to the PPD, no difference between the IDBs was observed.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this experiment, the conical IDBs are less effective than cylindrical IDBs with respect to lingual approximal plaque removal. Thus, in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy, the cylindrical shape should be the first choice of IDB to obtain and maintain gingival health around natural teeth.