机械装置与抗菌冲洗在减少牙菌斑和牙龈炎中的作用。

Clinical preventive dentistry Pub Date : 1990-08-01
P Finkelstein, K G Yost, E Grossman
{"title":"机械装置与抗菌冲洗在减少牙菌斑和牙龈炎中的作用。","authors":"P Finkelstein,&nbsp;K G Yost,&nbsp;E Grossman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The effectiveness of mechanical oral cleaning and oral antimicrobial rinses was compared for gingivitis and bacterial plaque control in 158 subjects. Teeth were brushed ad lib throughout; four of the five groups used either an interdental cleaner, dental floss, an essential oil mouthwash or a cetypyridinium mouthwash. Gingival bleeding (EIBI), visual inflammation (VGI), and tooth plaque coverage were evaluated at zero, six and 12 weeks of product use. After six weeks, bleeding reduction was 42% greater for the interdental cleaner and 21% greater for the dental floss than for the control. All groups showed a further decrease after 12 weeks, but only the 49% reduction of the interdental cleaner was significantly greater than the control. The rinses showed no more reduction in bleeding sites than the control throughout the study. VGI scores were no different from the control for any of the groups. However, the EIBI proved much more sensitive than the visual method finding three times as many inflamed sites. Plaque was reduced by both antimicrobial rinses 27% more than the control over 12 weeks; the interdental cleaner and dental floss groups showed no significant incremental plaque reductions. The results suggest antimicrobial rinses reduce plaque on visible tooth surfaces, but do not penetrate sufficiently between teeth to affect interdental plaque and thus interdental inflammation. However, by disturbing interdental plaque, both dental floss and the interdental cleaner have little effect on visible tooth surface plaque accumulation, yet produce a significant reduction in gingival inflammation.</p>","PeriodicalId":75715,"journal":{"name":"Clinical preventive dentistry","volume":"12 3","pages":"8-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanical devices versus antimicrobial rinses in plaque and gingivitis reduction.\",\"authors\":\"P Finkelstein,&nbsp;K G Yost,&nbsp;E Grossman\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The effectiveness of mechanical oral cleaning and oral antimicrobial rinses was compared for gingivitis and bacterial plaque control in 158 subjects. Teeth were brushed ad lib throughout; four of the five groups used either an interdental cleaner, dental floss, an essential oil mouthwash or a cetypyridinium mouthwash. Gingival bleeding (EIBI), visual inflammation (VGI), and tooth plaque coverage were evaluated at zero, six and 12 weeks of product use. After six weeks, bleeding reduction was 42% greater for the interdental cleaner and 21% greater for the dental floss than for the control. All groups showed a further decrease after 12 weeks, but only the 49% reduction of the interdental cleaner was significantly greater than the control. The rinses showed no more reduction in bleeding sites than the control throughout the study. VGI scores were no different from the control for any of the groups. However, the EIBI proved much more sensitive than the visual method finding three times as many inflamed sites. Plaque was reduced by both antimicrobial rinses 27% more than the control over 12 weeks; the interdental cleaner and dental floss groups showed no significant incremental plaque reductions. The results suggest antimicrobial rinses reduce plaque on visible tooth surfaces, but do not penetrate sufficiently between teeth to affect interdental plaque and thus interdental inflammation. However, by disturbing interdental plaque, both dental floss and the interdental cleaner have little effect on visible tooth surface plaque accumulation, yet produce a significant reduction in gingival inflammation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical preventive dentistry\",\"volume\":\"12 3\",\"pages\":\"8-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical preventive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比较了机械口腔清洁和口腔抗菌漱口水对158例牙龈炎和菌斑控制的效果。从头到尾都是即兴刷牙;五组中有四组使用牙间清洁剂、牙线、精油漱口水或乙基吡啶漱口水。牙龈出血(EIBI)、视觉炎症(VGI)和牙菌斑覆盖在产品使用的0周、6周和12周进行评估。六周后,与对照组相比,使用牙间清洁剂的出血减少了42%,使用牙线的出血减少了21%。12周后,所有组均进一步下降,但只有牙间清洁剂减少了49%,明显高于对照组。在整个研究过程中,漱口剂并没有比对照组减少更多的出血部位。任何一组的VGI评分都与对照组没有差异。然而,EIBI被证明比目测方法更敏感,发现的炎症部位是目测方法的三倍。在12周的时间里,两种抗菌漱口剂都比对照组减少了27%的菌斑;牙间清洁剂组和牙线组没有明显的菌斑减少。结果表明,抗菌漱口水可以减少可见牙齿表面的菌斑,但不能充分渗透到牙齿之间,从而影响牙间菌斑,从而导致牙间炎症。然而,牙线和牙间清洁剂通过干扰牙间菌斑,对可见的牙表面菌斑积累几乎没有影响,但却能显著减少牙龈炎症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mechanical devices versus antimicrobial rinses in plaque and gingivitis reduction.

The effectiveness of mechanical oral cleaning and oral antimicrobial rinses was compared for gingivitis and bacterial plaque control in 158 subjects. Teeth were brushed ad lib throughout; four of the five groups used either an interdental cleaner, dental floss, an essential oil mouthwash or a cetypyridinium mouthwash. Gingival bleeding (EIBI), visual inflammation (VGI), and tooth plaque coverage were evaluated at zero, six and 12 weeks of product use. After six weeks, bleeding reduction was 42% greater for the interdental cleaner and 21% greater for the dental floss than for the control. All groups showed a further decrease after 12 weeks, but only the 49% reduction of the interdental cleaner was significantly greater than the control. The rinses showed no more reduction in bleeding sites than the control throughout the study. VGI scores were no different from the control for any of the groups. However, the EIBI proved much more sensitive than the visual method finding three times as many inflamed sites. Plaque was reduced by both antimicrobial rinses 27% more than the control over 12 weeks; the interdental cleaner and dental floss groups showed no significant incremental plaque reductions. The results suggest antimicrobial rinses reduce plaque on visible tooth surfaces, but do not penetrate sufficiently between teeth to affect interdental plaque and thus interdental inflammation. However, by disturbing interdental plaque, both dental floss and the interdental cleaner have little effect on visible tooth surface plaque accumulation, yet produce a significant reduction in gingival inflammation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信