A randomized-controlled crossover study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cleansing efficacy of waist-shaped versus cylindric inter-dental brushes in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After sample size estimation, 20 periodontal maintenance patients diagnosed with periodontitis stage 3 were recruited. Brushing efficacy of waist-shaped and cylindric inter-dental brushes was evaluated in a randomized-controlled, examiner-blinded, two-period crossover study by assessment of the Turesky modification of Quigley-Hein plaque index (T-QHI) and the papillary bleeding index (PBI) at four sites per tooth.

RESULTS

Seventeen probands with 1,474 tooth sites finished the study. At baseline, median of overall T-QHI scores was 1.4 (interquartile range 1.38-1.92). After 1 month, T-QHI for waist-shaped inter-dental brushes was 1.24 (1.03-1.52); in 15 individuals, T-QHI 0 was the grade most often measured. T-QHI for cylindric brushes was 1.71 (1.18-2.29; p = .042), with T-QHI 0 being the grade most often measured only in seven individuals. The odds ratio for establishing plaque-free inter-dental sites with waist-shaped relative to cylindric brushes was 1.8 [95% CI 1.6-1.9] (p < .001; logistic regression analysis). There were no statistically significant differences between PBI levels of waist-shaped and cylindric brushes.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the superiority in cleansing efficacy of waist-shaped over cylindric inter-dental brushes in individuals receiving supportive periodontal treatment.

Primary prevention of periodontitis: managing gingivitis

Periodontitis is a ubiquitous and irreversible inflammatory condition and represents a significant public health burden. Severe periodontitis affects over 11% of adults, is a major cause of tooth loss impacting negatively upon speech, nutrition, quality of life and self-esteem, and has systemic inflammatory consequences. Periodontitis is preventable and treatment leads to reduced rates of tooth loss and improved quality of life. However, successful treatment necessitates behaviour change in patients to address lifestyle risk factors (e.g. smoking) and, most importantly, to attain and sustain high standards of daily plaque removal, lifelong. While mechanical plaque removal remains the bedrock of successful periodontal disease management, in high-risk patients it appears that the critical threshold for plaque accumulation to trigger periodontitis is low, and such patients may benefit from adjunctive agents for primary prevention of periodontitis.

AIM

The aims of this working group were to systematically review the evidence for primary prevention of periodontitis by preventing gingivitis via four approaches: 1) the efficacy of mechanical self-administered plaque control regimes; 2) the efficacy of self-administered inter-dental mechanical plaque control; 3) the efficacy of adjunctive chemical plaque control; and 4) anti-inflammatory (sole or adjunctive) approaches.

METHODS

Two meta-reviews (mechanical plaque removal) and two traditional systematic reviews (chemical plaque control/anti-inflammatory agents) formed the basis of this consensus.

RESULTS

Data support the belief that professionally administered plaque control significantly improves gingival inflammation and lowers plaque scores, with some evidence that reinforcement of oral hygiene provides further benefit. Re-chargeable power toothbrushes provide small but statistically significant additional reductions in gingival inflammation and plaque levels. Flossing cannot be recommended other than for sites of gingival and periodontal health, where inter-dental brushes (IDBs) will not pass through the interproximal area without trauma. Otherwise, IDBs are the device of choice for interproximal plaque removal. Use of local or systemic anti-inflammatory agents in the management of gingivitis has no robust evidence base. We support the almost universal recommendations that all people should brush their teeth twice a day for at least 2 min. with fluoridated dentifrice. Expert opinion is that for periodontitis patients 2 min. is likely to be insufficient, especially when considering the need for additional use of inter-dental cleaning devices. In patients with gingivitis once daily inter-dental cleaning is recommended and the adjunctive use of chemical plaque control agents offers advantages in this group.

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.