Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in adolescent orthodontic patients. A randomized-controlled crossover study.

Autor: Gänzer H; University Hospital of Orthodontics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria., Kasslatter M; Südtirol Dental Clinic, Latsch, Italy., Wiesmüller V; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria., Denk L; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria., Sigwart AM; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria., Crismani A; University Hospital of Orthodontics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria. Adriano.crismani@i-med.ac.at.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical oral investigations [Clin Oral Investig] 2024 Sep 13; Vol. 28 (10), pp. 524. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 13.
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05842-9
Abstrakt: 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.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: