Hani S AlMoharib, Mansour H AlAskar, Essam A Abuthera, Khalid A Alshalhoub, Faisal K BinRokan, Nawaf S AlQahtani, Hossam W Almadhoon
{"title":"三种牙间隙清洁方法对单种植体支持冠种植体周围健康维护的效果:随机临床试验","authors":"Hani S AlMoharib, Mansour H AlAskar, Essam A Abuthera, Khalid A Alshalhoub, Faisal K BinRokan, Nawaf S AlQahtani, Hossam W Almadhoon","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of an interproximal brush, a water flosser, and dental floss in removing plaque and reducing inflammation around implant-supported crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 45 participants with implant-supported single crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: interproximal brush, water flosser, and dental floss. Plaque index scores, gingival index scores, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assessed at baseline and after a two-week period. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the second visit, improvements in plaque control were observed across all three interdental cleaning methods. The water flosser demonstrated a slight reduction in IL-6 levels (60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04) compared to the initial visit, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Conversely, both the interdental brush and dental floss exhibited a slight increase in IL-6 levels at the second visit (60.73 ± 2.93 and 55.7 ± 10.64, respectively) compared to the mean at the first visit (58.38 ± 3.24 and 54.6 ± 2.22, respectively). Among the groups, only the interproximal brush demonstrated a statistically significant difference in IL-6 levels (p=0.008), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the dental floss and water flosser groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the study's limitations, our findings suggest that all three methods of interdental cleaning effectively improve plaque control and reduce gingival inflammation. However, using a water flosser appears to reduce inflammation more effectively, highlighting its potential advantage over the other two methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and impact of these methods on implant survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":"22 1","pages":"51-56"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619878/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Three Interdental Cleaning Methods for Peri-Implant Health Maintenance of Single Implant-Supported Crowns: A Randomised Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Hani S AlMoharib, Mansour H AlAskar, Essam A Abuthera, Khalid A Alshalhoub, Faisal K BinRokan, Nawaf S AlQahtani, Hossam W Almadhoon\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of an interproximal brush, a water flosser, and dental floss in removing plaque and reducing inflammation around implant-supported crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 45 participants with implant-supported single crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: interproximal brush, water flosser, and dental floss. Plaque index scores, gingival index scores, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assessed at baseline and after a two-week period. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the second visit, improvements in plaque control were observed across all three interdental cleaning methods. The water flosser demonstrated a slight reduction in IL-6 levels (60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04) compared to the initial visit, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Conversely, both the interdental brush and dental floss exhibited a slight increase in IL-6 levels at the second visit (60.73 ± 2.93 and 55.7 ± 10.64, respectively) compared to the mean at the first visit (58.38 ± 3.24 and 54.6 ± 2.22, respectively). Among the groups, only the interproximal brush demonstrated a statistically significant difference in IL-6 levels (p=0.008), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the dental floss and water flosser groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the study's limitations, our findings suggest that all three methods of interdental cleaning effectively improve plaque control and reduce gingival inflammation. However, using a water flosser appears to reduce inflammation more effectively, highlighting its potential advantage over the other two methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and impact of these methods on implant survival.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19696,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"51-56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619878/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of Three Interdental Cleaning Methods for Peri-Implant Health Maintenance of Single Implant-Supported Crowns: A Randomised Clinical Trial.
Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of an interproximal brush, a water flosser, and dental floss in removing plaque and reducing inflammation around implant-supported crowns.
Materials and methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 45 participants with implant-supported single crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: interproximal brush, water flosser, and dental floss. Plaque index scores, gingival index scores, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assessed at baseline and after a two-week period. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes among the groups.
Results: Following the second visit, improvements in plaque control were observed across all three interdental cleaning methods. The water flosser demonstrated a slight reduction in IL-6 levels (60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04) compared to the initial visit, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Conversely, both the interdental brush and dental floss exhibited a slight increase in IL-6 levels at the second visit (60.73 ± 2.93 and 55.7 ± 10.64, respectively) compared to the mean at the first visit (58.38 ± 3.24 and 54.6 ± 2.22, respectively). Among the groups, only the interproximal brush demonstrated a statistically significant difference in IL-6 levels (p=0.008), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the dental floss and water flosser groups.
Conclusion: Within the study's limitations, our findings suggest that all three methods of interdental cleaning effectively improve plaque control and reduce gingival inflammation. However, using a water flosser appears to reduce inflammation more effectively, highlighting its potential advantage over the other two methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and impact of these methods on implant survival.
期刊介绍:
Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.