Clinical Parameters and Oral Fluid Biomarkers in Gingivitis Subjects using an Electric Toothbrush with Irrigator vs a Manual Toothbrush Alone over 8 Weeks: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial

Oral Irrigation Devices: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Self-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.

METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

Two 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral 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.

Digital imaging and qPCR analysis and comparison of short-term plaque removal effects of tooth brushing

Purpose

Digital image technology and a real-time fluorescent quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR) were used to determine the changes in dental plaque caused by different toothbrushing tools.

Methods

A total of 120 subjects were selected and divided into four groups: a manual toothbrush group, a manual toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator group, an electric toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator group, and an electric toothbrush group. We compared the changes in plaque count, plaque area, and colony colonization of the four groups after different cleaning tools had been used for a period of time.

Results

Dental plaque count and plaque area decreased in all four groups. The decreases in plaque count and Streptococcus mutans in the electric toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator group were significantly higher than those in other groups.

Conclusion

Electric toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator shows a good result for plaque removal effect. Digital image analysis combined with biological methods can be used to evaluate dental plaque.

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

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.