水冲牙器与牙间刷对牙龈出血和牙龈磨损的功效比较:为期 4 周的随机对照试验。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Deborah Mancinelli-Lyle, Fridus G A Van der Weijden, Dagmar E Slot
{"title":"水冲牙器与牙间刷对牙龈出血和牙龈磨损的功效比较:为期 4 周的随机对照试验。","authors":"Deborah Mancinelli-Lyle, Fridus G A Van der Weijden, Dagmar E Slot","doi":"10.1111/idh.12817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the efficacy of a water flosser (WF) compared to an interdental brush (IDB) in reducing gingival inflammation. Additionally, the products were compared on the incidence of gingival abrasion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Young adults with moderate gingivitis and ≥4 accessible interdental spaces by IDB in each quadrant were selected for this study. Participants were randomly assigned a WF or an IDB as an adjunct to manual toothbrushing. Clinical signs of inflammation were measured in two randomly assigned contralateral quadrants by bleeding on pocket probing (BOPP) or bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP). Gingival Abrasion Score (GAS) was assessed per quadrant. Data was recorded at the baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups WF (n = 40) and IDB (n = 38) showed a significant reduction (p = 0.000) in BOMP and BOPP from the baseline to 4 weeks for all sites and the interdental sites only. At 4 weeks the WF group compared to the IDB group showed significantly lower BOPP (p = 0.030) and BOMP scores (p = 0.003) for all sites. For the interdental sites WF showed compared to IDB for BOMP significant (p = 0.019) lower values but not for BOPP (p = 0.219). There were no differences between the groups for GAS at any time point.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with moderate gingivitis, after 4 weeks use the WF is more effective than the IDB in obtaining marginal gingival health.</p>","PeriodicalId":13791,"journal":{"name":"International journal of dental hygiene","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of a water flosser compared to an interdental brush on gingival bleeding and gingival abrasion: A 4 week randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Deborah Mancinelli-Lyle, Fridus G A Van der Weijden, Dagmar E Slot\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/idh.12817\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the efficacy of a water flosser (WF) compared to an interdental brush (IDB) in reducing gingival inflammation. Additionally, the products were compared on the incidence of gingival abrasion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Young adults with moderate gingivitis and ≥4 accessible interdental spaces by IDB in each quadrant were selected for this study. Participants were randomly assigned a WF or an IDB as an adjunct to manual toothbrushing. Clinical signs of inflammation were measured in two randomly assigned contralateral quadrants by bleeding on pocket probing (BOPP) or bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP). Gingival Abrasion Score (GAS) was assessed per quadrant. Data was recorded at the baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups WF (n = 40) and IDB (n = 38) showed a significant reduction (p = 0.000) in BOMP and BOPP from the baseline to 4 weeks for all sites and the interdental sites only. At 4 weeks the WF group compared to the IDB group showed significantly lower BOPP (p = 0.030) and BOMP scores (p = 0.003) for all sites. For the interdental sites WF showed compared to IDB for BOMP significant (p = 0.019) lower values but not for BOPP (p = 0.219). There were no differences between the groups for GAS at any time point.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with moderate gingivitis, after 4 weeks use the WF is more effective than the IDB in obtaining marginal gingival health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of dental hygiene\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of dental hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12817\",\"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":"International journal of dental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12817","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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定水冲牙器(WF)与牙间刷(IDB)在减少牙龈炎症方面的功效。此外,还比较这两种产品在牙龈磨损发生率方面的效果:本研究选择了患有中度牙龈炎且每个象限的牙间刷可进入的牙间隙≥4个的年轻人。参与者被随机分配使用 WF 或 IDB 作为人工刷牙的辅助工具。在随机分配的两个对侧象限中,通过探诊袋出血(BOPP)或探诊边缘出血(BOMP)测量炎症的临床症状。每个象限评估牙龈磨损评分(GAS)。记录基线、2 周和 4 周时的数据:WF 组(n = 40)和 IDB 组(n = 38)从基线到 4 周,所有部位和仅牙间隙部位的 BOMP 和 BOPP 均显著减少(p = 0.000)。在 4 周时,WF 组与 IDB 组相比,所有部位的 BOPP(p = 0.030)和 BOMP(p = 0.003)得分都明显降低。在牙间部位,WF 组与 IDB 组相比,BOMP 值明显降低(p = 0.019),但 BOPP 值没有明显降低(p = 0.219)。各组在任何时间点的 GAS 值均无差异:结论:对于中度牙龈炎患者,使用 4 周后,WF 在获得边缘牙龈健康方面比 IDB 更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of a water flosser compared to an interdental brush on gingival bleeding and gingival abrasion: A 4 week randomized controlled trial.

Aim: To determine the efficacy of a water flosser (WF) compared to an interdental brush (IDB) in reducing gingival inflammation. Additionally, the products were compared on the incidence of gingival abrasion.

Methods: Young adults with moderate gingivitis and ≥4 accessible interdental spaces by IDB in each quadrant were selected for this study. Participants were randomly assigned a WF or an IDB as an adjunct to manual toothbrushing. Clinical signs of inflammation were measured in two randomly assigned contralateral quadrants by bleeding on pocket probing (BOPP) or bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP). Gingival Abrasion Score (GAS) was assessed per quadrant. Data was recorded at the baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks.

Results: Both groups WF (n = 40) and IDB (n = 38) showed a significant reduction (p = 0.000) in BOMP and BOPP from the baseline to 4 weeks for all sites and the interdental sites only. At 4 weeks the WF group compared to the IDB group showed significantly lower BOPP (p = 0.030) and BOMP scores (p = 0.003) for all sites. For the interdental sites WF showed compared to IDB for BOMP significant (p = 0.019) lower values but not for BOPP (p = 0.219). There were no differences between the groups for GAS at any time point.

Conclusion: In patients with moderate gingivitis, after 4 weeks use the WF is more effective than the IDB in obtaining marginal gingival health.

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
International journal of dental hygiene
International journal of dental hygiene DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Dental Hygiene is the official scientific peer-reviewed journal of the International Federation of Dental Hygienists (IFDH). The journal brings the latest scientific news, high quality commissioned reviews as well as clinical, professional and educational developmental and legislative news to the profession world-wide. Thus, it acts as a forum for exchange of relevant information and enhancement of the profession with the purpose of promoting oral health for patients and communities. The aim of the International Journal of Dental Hygiene is to provide a forum for exchange of scientific knowledge in the field of oral health and dental hygiene. A further aim is to support and facilitate the application of new knowledge into clinical practice. The journal welcomes original research, reviews and case reports as well as clinical, professional, educational and legislative news to the profession world-wide.
×
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