Hanna Gänzer, Manuel Kasslatter, Vera Wiesmüller, Lena Denk, Anna-Maria Sigwart, Adriano Crismani
{"title":"采用微爆破技术的口腔冲洗器对青少年正畸患者的清洁效果。随机对照交叉研究","authors":"Hanna Gänzer, Manuel Kasslatter, Vera Wiesmüller, Lena Denk, Anna-Maria Sigwart, Adriano Crismani","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-05842-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>Simplifying interdental space cleaning is a constantly discussed topic. The present study aimed to compare the cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with that of dental flossing in adolescent patients with fixed braces after four weeks of home-use.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Materials and methods</h3><p>The study design is a randomized, single-blinded cross-over study. Following a twenty-eight-day period of product utilization in a home setting, a comparative analysis was conducted on hygiene indices, the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) and the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), between the test group (oral irrigator) and the control group (dental floss).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Seventeen adolescent individuals completed the study. After 28 days of cleaning with the oral irrigator, RMNPI was 58.81% (55.31–66.47) compared to 59.46% (52.68–68.67) with dental floss (<i>p</i> = 0.070). Subgroup analyses did not indicate the superiority of either method. GBI after the test phase with the oral irrigator was 28.93% (23.21–33.97) and insignificantly higher compared to 26.40% (21.01–31.41) achieved with dental floss (<i>p</i> = 0.1585).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Neither of the two products demonstrated statistically significant superiority in terms of cleaning efficacy. Therefore, no recommendation can be made in favor of one over the other. It was found that the high initial hygiene indices for fixed orthodontic appliances could be improved through increased awareness and precise instruction.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Clinical relevance</h3><p>For adolescent patients who struggle to use interdental brushes an oral irrigator may be suggested as a simple alternative in hard-to-reach areas, such as those around a fixed dental appliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in adolescent orthodontic patients. A randomized-controlled crossover study\",\"authors\":\"Hanna Gänzer, Manuel Kasslatter, Vera Wiesmüller, Lena Denk, Anna-Maria Sigwart, Adriano Crismani\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00784-024-05842-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>Simplifying interdental space cleaning is a constantly discussed topic. The present study aimed to compare the cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with that of dental flossing in adolescent patients with fixed braces after four weeks of home-use.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Materials and methods</h3><p>The study design is a randomized, single-blinded cross-over study. Following a twenty-eight-day period of product utilization in a home setting, a comparative analysis was conducted on hygiene indices, the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) and the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), between the test group (oral irrigator) and the control group (dental floss).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Seventeen adolescent individuals completed the study. After 28 days of cleaning with the oral irrigator, RMNPI was 58.81% (55.31–66.47) compared to 59.46% (52.68–68.67) with dental floss (<i>p</i> = 0.070). Subgroup analyses did not indicate the superiority of either method. GBI after the test phase with the oral irrigator was 28.93% (23.21–33.97) and insignificantly higher compared to 26.40% (21.01–31.41) achieved with dental floss (<i>p</i> = 0.1585).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>Neither of the two products demonstrated statistically significant superiority in terms of cleaning efficacy. Therefore, no recommendation can be made in favor of one over the other. It was found that the high initial hygiene indices for fixed orthodontic appliances could be improved through increased awareness and precise instruction.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Clinical relevance</h3><p>For adolescent patients who struggle to use interdental brushes an oral irrigator may be suggested as a simple alternative in hard-to-reach areas, such as those around a fixed dental appliance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05842-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05842-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in adolescent orthodontic patients. A randomized-controlled crossover study
Objectives
Simplifying interdental space cleaning is a constantly discussed topic. The present study aimed to compare the cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with that of dental flossing in adolescent patients with fixed braces after four weeks of home-use.
Materials and methods
The study design is a randomized, single-blinded cross-over study. Following a twenty-eight-day period of product utilization in a home setting, a comparative analysis was conducted on hygiene indices, the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) and the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), between the test group (oral irrigator) and the control group (dental floss).
Results
Seventeen adolescent individuals completed the study. After 28 days of cleaning with the oral irrigator, RMNPI was 58.81% (55.31–66.47) compared to 59.46% (52.68–68.67) with dental floss (p = 0.070). Subgroup analyses did not indicate the superiority of either method. GBI after the test phase with the oral irrigator was 28.93% (23.21–33.97) and insignificantly higher compared to 26.40% (21.01–31.41) achieved with dental floss (p = 0.1585).
Conclusions
Neither of the two products demonstrated statistically significant superiority in terms of cleaning efficacy. Therefore, no recommendation can be made in favor of one over the other. It was found that the high initial hygiene indices for fixed orthodontic appliances could be improved through increased awareness and precise instruction.
Clinical relevance
For adolescent patients who struggle to use interdental brushes an oral irrigator may be suggested as a simple alternative in hard-to-reach areas, such as those around a fixed dental appliance.
期刊介绍:
The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.