Carr M P, Rice G L, Horton J E
Department of Primary Care, College of Dentistry, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Am J Dent. 2000 Aug;13(4):212-4.
To evaluate the efficacy of four different floss types for interproximal plaque removal on the normal dentition.
24 dental hygiene students tested each of four different floss types: waxed, unwaxed, woven and shred-resistant. At baseline, all subjects received a prophylaxis to become plaque-free and identical flossing instructions were given. Subjects were then instructed not to brush, floss, or rinse for 3 days to allow for plaque development. On the fourth day, each subject's teeth were disclosed and scored using O'Leary's Plaque Index. Subjects were then randomly assigned one of the four floss types to use throughout the dentition, following which a second plaque record was assessed. Subjects were timed while flossing, and then completed a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scoring their degree of discomfort/comfort and ease of use for each specific type of floss. This protocol was followed until all four floss types were tested by each subject. Results analyzed reductions in total interproximal plaque score (TIPS), anterior (teeth) interproximal plaque score (AIPS), and posterior (teeth) interproximal plaque score (PIPS).
The greatest reduction in TIPS and PIPS was with waxed floss (68.87%, 66.54% respectively) and in AIPS with woven floss (75.15%). Post-hoc testing using Tukey's method revealed no significant differences among the four floss types. VAS scores revealed shred-resistant most comfortable (6.99) while unwaxed was least (4.29). These results indicated minimal differences in the efficacy of different types of floss, their degree of comfort and ease of use.
评估四种不同牙线类型对正常牙列邻面菌斑清除的效果。
24名口腔卫生专业学生测试了四种不同的牙线类型:蜡质牙线、非蜡质牙线、编织牙线和抗撕裂牙线。在基线时,所有受试者均接受了洁治以清除菌斑,并给予相同的牙线使用指导。然后指示受试者3天内不刷牙、不使用牙线、不漱口,以使菌斑形成。在第四天,使用奥利里菌斑指数对每位受试者的牙齿进行染色并评分。然后,随机分配每位受试者使用四种牙线类型中的一种清洁全口牙齿,之后评估第二次菌斑记录。在使用牙线时记录受试者的用时,然后让他们完成一份10厘米的视觉模拟量表(VAS),对每种特定牙线类型的不适/舒适程度和易用性进行评分。每位受试者按照此方案进行测试,直到测试完所有四种牙线类型。分析结果包括总邻面菌斑评分(TIPS)、前牙邻面菌斑评分(AIPS)和后牙邻面菌斑评分(PIPS)的降低情况。
蜡质牙线使TIPS和PIPS降低最多(分别为68.87%和66.54%),编织牙线使AIPS降低最多(75.15%)。使用Tukey法进行的事后检验显示,四种牙线类型之间无显著差异。VAS评分显示,抗撕裂牙线最舒适(6.99),而非蜡质牙线最不舒适(4.29)。这些结果表明,不同类型牙线在功效、舒适程度和易用性方面差异极小。