Dataset Information

The efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner on parameters of oral soft tissue health-a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

This study aimed to establish the efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner (RBIC) as an adjunct to toothbrushing (TB) compared to that of the adjuvant use of other interdental cleaning devices and TB alone on plaque and gingivitis parameters. Additionally, the safety aspects and panellists' appreciation were evaluated.

Materials and methods

Databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating plaque (PI), bleeding (BS), and gingival index (GI) scores, safety assessments, and participants' appreciation. Extracted data were summarized in a descriptive and, if possible, a meta-analysis.

Results

The search retrieved 142 unique papers; six studies with 10 comparisons were included in a descriptive analysis. Five RCTs compared RBICs with interdental brushes (IDBs), four with dental floss (DF) and one with manual TB only. No comparisons to wood sticks were retrieved. Using an RBIC resulted in no difference in plaque scores compared to DF and IDBs. For overall bleeding scores, no difference was found. Two studies analysing the accessible sites separately found RBICs to be more favourable than DF and IDBs. Conversely, one study evaluating the efficacy of RBICs compared to IDBs, according to the GI scores, showed that IDBs achieved significantly greater reduction. Moreover, RBICs caused fewer gingival abrasions and were preferred by the study participants.

Conclusion

Based on a descriptive and a meta-analysis of the available literature, it is synthesized that in gingivitis patients, a weak to very weak certainty exists that a RBIC is indicated for gingivitis and plaque reduction. The evidence supports user safety and participants' preferences.

SUBMITTER: van der Weijden F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292806 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner on parameters of oral soft tissue health-a systematic review.

van der Weijden Fridus F Slot Dagmar Else DE van der Sluijs Eveline E Hennequin-Hoenderdos Nienke Lisette NL

International journal of dental hygiene 20210529 1

<h4>Aim</h4>This study aimed to establish the efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner (RBIC) as an adjunct to toothbrushing (TB) compared to that of the adjuvant use of other interdental cleaning devices and TB alone on plaque and gingivitis parameters. Additionally, the safety aspects and panellists' appreciation were evaluated.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating plaque (PI), bleeding (BS), and gingival inde ...[more]

PMID: 33630360

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePeri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) are inflammatory conditions that affect the peri-implant tissues and are induced by microbial biofilms (dental plaque) formed around the implant. Removal of biofilm is the fundamental step in managing peri-implant diseases. Interdental cleaning aids such as interdental brush, unitufted brush, or oral irrigation along with regular toothbrushing are recommended for effective plaque control around implants. The present systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of home use of oral irrigators compared to other plaque control methods for managing peri-implant diseases.MethodThis systematic review has been prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA) checklist. Five databases were searched using the following keywords: "Peri-implantitis" OR Periimplantitis OR "Peri-implant disease" OR "Peri-implant Mucositis" AND "Oral irrigation" OR "Oral Irrigator" OR Waterpik OR "Interdental irrigation" OR "Oral Spray" OR "Oral Irrigants".ResultsOral irrigator along with mechanical brushing was found to be more effective than mechanical brushing alone in reducing the plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BOP). No statistically significant difference in improvement in quality of life and patient satisfaction with regard to comfort and ease of use was noted upon using mechanical toothbrushing alone and an oral irrigator. Implant sites where an oral irrigator was used showed more reduction in BOP (81.8% vs 33.35%) compared to sites where the floss was used (P = 0.0018). The levels of the red and orange complex bacteria in the peri-implant biofilm were lower with the use of an oral irrigator than with toothbrushing alone.ConclusionOral irrigators along with toothbrushing were found to be more effective in removing microbial plaque around implants and controlling peri-implant inflammation compared to mechanical brushing alone. The reduction in BOP was better with the use of oral irrigation compared to floss and interdental brush.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the associations between interdental cleaning behavior and the prevalence of caries and periodontal disease and numbers of missing teeth, with data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011 to 2012 and 2013 to 2014). Analysis included the following parameters: interproximal clinical attachment level (iCAL) ≥3 mm, interproximal probing depth (iPD) ≥4 mm, number of coronal and interproximal caries, number of missing teeth, ≥1 surfaces with coronal caries, and periodontal profile classes (PPCs). Chi-square was used for bivariate associations. Associations of interdental cleaning with outcomes were assessed with multiple linear regression and generalized logit regression, adjusting for age, race, sex, diabetes, smoking, education, dental visits, and sugar consumption. Nonusers had a significantly higher percentage of sites with iCAL ≥3 mm and iPD ≥4 mm as compared with individuals who used interdental cleaning devices ( P < 0.0001). Individuals with a higher frequency of cleaning (4 to 7×/wk) had a significantly lower extent of sites with iCAL ≥3 mm as compared with lower-frequency cleaning (1 to 3×/wk; P ≤ 0.05). Interdental cleaning users showed lower numbers of coronal caries, interproximal coronal caries, and missing teeth as compared with nonusers ( P < 0.0001). Nonusers had 1.73-times (95% confidence interval, 1.53 to 1.94) higher odds for having ≥1 surfaces of coronal caries as compared with interdental cleaning users, regardless of the weekly frequency. Individuals were less likely to be in diseased PPCs if they were interdental cleaning users. Low-frequency cleaners (1 to 3×/wk) had significantly greater odds (1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.88) to have severe disease (PPC-G) versus health (PPC-A) than were high-frequency cleaners (4 to 7×/wk). Interdental cleaning users showed lower levels of periodontal disease and caries and lower numbers of missing teeth. Higher frequency of interdental cleaning was correlated with increased periodontal health. Individuals with severe periodontal disease could show additional oral health benefits by increasing cleaning frequency. The data support the use of interdental cleaning devices as an oral hygiene behavior for promoting health.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interdental rubber picks (IRP) have become a frequent and convenient alternative for interdental cleaning. However, only little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of newer designs available on the market. Therefore, a new in vitro model was evaluated to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE), as well as the force needed for insertion and during the use of IRP, with high reproducibility. METHODS:Five different sizes of commercially marketed IRP with elastomeric fingers (IRP-F) (GUM SOFT-PICKS® Advanced, Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, Schönau, Germany) or slats (IRP-S) (TePe EasyPick™, TePe D-A-CH GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at interdental areas (standardized cleaning, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. Forces were registered with a load cell [N]. RESULTS:IRP-F have to be inserted with significant higher forces of 3.2 ± 1.8 N compared to IRP-S (2.0 ± 1.6 N; p < 0.001) independent of the size and type of artificial interdental area. During cleaning process IRP-S showed significantly lower values for pushing/pulling (1.0 ± 0.8 N/0.5 ± 0.4 N) compared to IRP-F (1.6 ± 0.8 N/0.7 ± 0.3 N; p < 0.001) concomitant to significantly lower ECE (19.1 ± 9.8 vs. 21.7 ± 10.0%, p = 0.002). Highest ECE was measured with largest size of IRP-F/IRP-S independent the morphology of interdental area. CONCLUSIONS:New interdental cleaning aids can be tested by the new experimental setup supported by 3D printing technology. Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IRP-F cleaned more effectively at higher forces compared to IRP-S.

Dataset Information

The efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner on parameters of oral soft tissue health-a systematic review.

Aim

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner on parameters of oral soft tissue health-a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets