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":" ","pages":""},"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}
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.
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.