Hague Anne L, Carr Michele P
Dental Hygiene, Section of Primary Care, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43218, USA.
J Periodontol. 2007 Aug;78(8):1529-37. doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060512.
Manual floss is often difficult to use, particularly in hard to reach posterior teeth. Many prefer automated flossers because of their ease of use. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of an automated flosser to manual floss for anterior, premolar, and molar teeth using the plaque index (PI) and gingival (GI) index.
A 10-week, two-treatment period, crossover design was used. The subjects were randomly assigned to control (C), manual (M), or automated (A) groups. The PI and GI were measured interdentally at baseline and days 15 and 30. Treatment subjects were assigned to the opposite group at the second baseline visit after a 2-week washout period. Subjects brushed twice a day. Treatment subjects used their respective floss once per day. Subjects refrained from oral hygiene 24 hours before study visits. The PI was measured pre- and postintervention on days 15 and 30. Mixed-effect analysis of covariance crossover models were used to test group effects at days 15 and 30 from both periods with the corresponding mean preintervention and baseline score as covariates for PI and GI, respectively. Within-subject treatment comparisons were made, and carryover effects were evaluated.
The majority of subjects (N = 102) were students (mean age, 23.3 +/- 5.0 [SD] years) with minimal gingivitis at baseline. At days 15 and 30, the M group had more plaque than the A group for all regions (P < or = 0.008), and the C group had more plaque than the A (P <0.001) and M groups (P < or = 0.021) for all regions. No regional treatment effect was observed for the GI. Within-subject analyses were more favorable for the A group than the M group. No significant carryover effect was observed.
The automated flossing device removed significantly more interproximal plaque in molar, premolar, and anterior teeth compared to manual floss at days 15 and 30. There was no significant difference in interdental inflammation between groups.
手动牙线通常难以使用，尤其是在难以触及的后牙部位。许多人更喜欢自动牙线清洁器，因为其使用方便。本研究的目的是使用菌斑指数（PI）和牙龈指数（GI）比较自动牙线清洁器与手动牙线在前牙、前磨牙和磨牙上的清洁效果。
采用为期10周、两个治疗期的交叉设计。受试者被随机分配到对照组（C）、手动组（M）或自动组（A）。在基线、第15天和第30天测量牙间隙处的PI和GI。经过2周的洗脱期后，治疗组受试者在第二次基线访视时被分配到相反的组。受试者每天刷牙两次。治疗组受试者每天使用各自的牙线一次。受试者在研究访视前24小时不进行口腔卫生清洁。在第15天和第30天干预前后测量PI。使用协方差交叉模型的混合效应分析来检验两个时期第15天和第30天的组效应，分别将相应的干预前平均得分和基线得分作为PI和GI的协变量。进行受试者内治疗比较，并评估残留效应。
大多数受试者（N = 102）是学生（平均年龄，23.3 +/- 5.0 [标准差]岁），基线时牙龈炎轻微。在第15天和第30天，M组在所有区域的菌斑都比A组多（P≤0.008），C组在所有区域的菌斑都比A组（P <0.001）和M组（P≤0.021）多。未观察到GI的区域治疗效果。受试者内分析对A组比对M组更有利。未观察到显著的残留效应。
在第15天和第30天，与手动牙线相比，自动牙线清洁器去除磨牙、前磨牙和前牙邻面菌斑的效果显著更好。两组之间牙间隙炎症无显著差异。
