Suppr超能文献

在一项纳入龈下菌斑评估的随机双盲试验中,对牙线和牙间隙刷的疗效及易用性进行比较。

A comparison of the efficacy and ease of use of dental floss and interproximal brushes in a randomised split mouth trial incorporating an assessment of subgingival plaque.

作者信息

Noorlin Ishak, Watts Trevor L P

机构信息

Department of Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Floor 21,Guy's Tower, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's & St Thomas' Hospitals, Guy's Campus, London SE1 9RT, UK.

出版信息

Oral Health Prev Dent. 2007;5(1):13-8.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Previous studies have compared the use of interdental brushes and dental floss. However, none have attempted to compare their effects on subgingival plaque. Nor have smokers been excluded from previous studies, where they may have affected the assessment of gingival inflammation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study compared, in untreated patients suffering from mild to moderate periodontitis, the efficacy of dental floss (DF) and interdental brushes (IDB) in the reduction of plaque, gingival inflammation and probing depth in a one-month period prior to subgingival debridement. Ten patients used DF for one side of the dentition and IDB for the other side for one month. Oral hygiene instruction was given at baseline. Measurements were made at baseline and at one month.

RESULTS

With IDB, the mean approximal plaque score reduced supragingivally from 14.5 to 5.7 at one month, and with DF, from 12.9 to 5.3; subgingivally the score reduced from 17.3 to 6.7, and 16.7 to 8.1 respectively (p < 0.001). BOP and mean probing depth reduced over time for IDB sites, but not DF sites (p < 0.01). Overall there were no differences between the two devices. Patients preferred IDB because of its simpler method of use.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IDB and DF resulted in similar beneficial effects on subgingival plaque and proximal gingival health.

摘要

目的

以往研究比较了牙间隙刷和牙线的使用情况。然而,尚无研究尝试比较它们对龈下菌斑的影响。以往研究也未排除吸烟者,而吸烟者可能影响牙龈炎症的评估。

材料与方法

本研究比较了在未接受治疗的轻至中度牙周炎患者中,牙线(DF)和牙间隙刷(IDB)在龈下清创术前1个月内减少菌斑、牙龈炎症和探诊深度的效果。10名患者一侧牙列使用DF,另一侧使用IDB,为期1个月。在基线时给予口腔卫生指导。在基线和1个月时进行测量。

结果

使用IDB时,1个月时邻面龈上平均菌斑评分从14.5降至5.7,使用DF时从12.9降至5.3;龈下评分分别从17.3降至6.7和从16.7降至8.1(p<0.001)。IDB部位的探诊出血(BOP)和平均探诊深度随时间减少,而DF部位则未减少(p<0.01)。总体而言,两种器械之间没有差异。患者因IDB使用方法更简单而更喜欢它。

结论

使用IDB和DF对龈下菌斑和邻面牙龈健康产生了相似的有益效果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验