{"title":"Waterpik®用于正畸固定矫治器患者口腔卫生维护的有效性:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Daniel Tyler, Jing Kang, Hock Hoe Goh","doi":"10.1177/14653125231173708","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To establish whether the use of a WaterPik<sup>®</sup> alongside a manual toothbrush (WaterPik<sup>®</sup> + MTB) is more effective for maintaining oral hygiene compared to the use of a manual toothbrush alone (MTB) in patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Orthodontic department at York Hospital, York Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 40 fit and well participants, aged 10-20 years, being treated with upper and lower fixed orthodontic appliances.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were randomly allocated, using stratified block randomisation, to the control group (MTB) or intervention group '(Waterpik<sup>®</sup> + MTB)'. Plaque, gingival and interdental bleeding indices were recorded at baseline, 8 weeks, 32 weeks and 56 weeks. A generalised linear mixed model was used to assess differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An interim analysis of results was performed with 40 patients recruited and 85% of data collected. The overall mean differences between the groups were as follows: plaque index = 0.199 (<i>P</i> = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.24 to 0.27); gingival index = -0.008 (<i>P</i> = 0.94, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.20); and interdental bleeding index = 5.60 (<i>P</i> = 0.563, 95% CI -13.22 to 24.42). No statistical difference between the two groups was found for any variable. The trial was stopped at this point.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In terms of oral hygiene, our study did not find evidence to support the claim of benefit of using a Waterpik<sup>®</sup> in addition to a manual toothbrush for patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances.</p>","PeriodicalId":16677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontics","volume":" ","pages":"367-377"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10693741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Waterpik<sup>®</sup> for oral hygiene maintenance in orthodontic fixed appliance patients: A randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Tyler, Jing Kang, Hock Hoe Goh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14653125231173708\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To establish whether the use of a WaterPik<sup>®</sup> alongside a manual toothbrush (WaterPik<sup>®</sup> + MTB) is more effective for maintaining oral hygiene compared to the use of a manual toothbrush alone (MTB) in patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Orthodontic department at York Hospital, York Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 40 fit and well participants, aged 10-20 years, being treated with upper and lower fixed orthodontic appliances.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were randomly allocated, using stratified block randomisation, to the control group (MTB) or intervention group '(Waterpik<sup>®</sup> + MTB)'. Plaque, gingival and interdental bleeding indices were recorded at baseline, 8 weeks, 32 weeks and 56 weeks. A generalised linear mixed model was used to assess differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An interim analysis of results was performed with 40 patients recruited and 85% of data collected. The overall mean differences between the groups were as follows: plaque index = 0.199 (<i>P</i> = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.24 to 0.27); gingival index = -0.008 (<i>P</i> = 0.94, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.20); and interdental bleeding index = 5.60 (<i>P</i> = 0.563, 95% CI -13.22 to 24.42). No statistical difference between the two groups was found for any variable. The trial was stopped at this point.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In terms of oral hygiene, our study did not find evidence to support the claim of benefit of using a Waterpik<sup>®</sup> in addition to a manual toothbrush for patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"367-377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10693741/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14653125231173708\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14653125231173708","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effectiveness of Waterpik® for oral hygiene maintenance in orthodontic fixed appliance patients: A randomised controlled trial.
Objective: To establish whether the use of a WaterPik® alongside a manual toothbrush (WaterPik® + MTB) is more effective for maintaining oral hygiene compared to the use of a manual toothbrush alone (MTB) in patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances.
Design: A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.
Setting: Orthodontic department at York Hospital, York Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Participants: A total of 40 fit and well participants, aged 10-20 years, being treated with upper and lower fixed orthodontic appliances.
Methods: Participants were randomly allocated, using stratified block randomisation, to the control group (MTB) or intervention group '(Waterpik® + MTB)'. Plaque, gingival and interdental bleeding indices were recorded at baseline, 8 weeks, 32 weeks and 56 weeks. A generalised linear mixed model was used to assess differences between groups.
Results: An interim analysis of results was performed with 40 patients recruited and 85% of data collected. The overall mean differences between the groups were as follows: plaque index = 0.199 (P = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.24 to 0.27); gingival index = -0.008 (P = 0.94, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.20); and interdental bleeding index = 5.60 (P = 0.563, 95% CI -13.22 to 24.42). No statistical difference between the two groups was found for any variable. The trial was stopped at this point.
Conclusions: In terms of oral hygiene, our study did not find evidence to support the claim of benefit of using a Waterpik® in addition to a manual toothbrush for patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orthodontics has an international circulation, publishing papers from throughout the world. The official journal of the British Orthodontic Society, it aims to publish high quality, evidence-based, clinically orientated or clinically relevant original research papers that will underpin evidence based orthodontic care. It particularly welcomes reports on prospective research into different treatment methods and techniques but also systematic reviews, meta-analyses and studies which will stimulate interest in new developments. Regular features include original papers on clinically relevant topics, clinical case reports, reviews of the orthodontic literature, editorials, book reviews, correspondence and other features of interest to the orthodontic community. The Journal is published in full colour throughout.