• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

两种电动齿间清洁装置在去除牙菌斑方面的比较。

Comparison of two power interdental cleaning devices on plaque removal.

作者信息

Sharma Naresh C, Lyle Deborah M, Qaqish Jimmy G, Schuller Reinhard

机构信息

BioSci Research Canada Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Dent. 2012;23(1):17-21.

PMID:22435320
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this randomized, single-use, single-blind, two-group, parallel clinical trial was to evaluate the supragingival plaque removal efficacy of two power interdental devices combined with a manual toothbrush.

METHODS

Eighty-two (82) subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Waterpik Water Flosser (WF) plus manual tooth brushing or Sonicare Air Floss (AF) plus manual tooth brushing. Pre-brushing and interdental cleaning scores were obtained using the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects were instructed on the use of the manual toothbrush and assigned an interdental product. Post-brushing and interdental cleaning scores were obtained after a supervised two-minute brushing and use of the interdental device. Scores were recorded for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual regions for each subject.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the pre-cleaning plaque scores for whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, or lingual regions. Both groups showed significant reductions in plaque from baseline for all regions. The WF group demonstrated significantly higher reductions as measured by the RMNPI compared to the AF for whole mouth (74.9% vs. 57.5%), marginal (58.6% vs. 36.7%), approximal (92.1% vs. 77.4%), facial (83.6% vs. 69.1%), and lingual (65.7% vs. 45.4%).

CONCLUSION

The use of the Waterpik Water Flosser removes significantly more plaque from tooth surfaces (whole mouth, marginal, approximal, facial, and lingual) than the Sonicare Air Floss when used with a manual toothbrush.

摘要

目的

本随机、一次性使用、单盲、两组平行临床试验的目的是评估两种电动牙间隙清洁装置与手动牙刷联合使用时龈上菌斑清除效果。

方法

82名受试者完成了本研究。受试者被随机分为两组:Waterpik水牙线(WF)加手动刷牙组或飞利浦声波震动牙刷气动力洁牙器(AF)加手动刷牙组。使用Rustogi改良海军菌斑指数(RMNPI)获得刷牙前和牙间隙清洁评分。指导受试者如何使用手动牙刷,并分配一种牙间隙清洁产品。在监督下进行两分钟刷牙并使用牙间隙清洁装置后,获得刷牙后和牙间隙清洁评分。记录每个受试者全口、边缘、邻面、颊面和舌面区域的评分。

结果

全口、边缘、邻面、颊面或舌面区域清洁前的菌斑评分无差异。两组所有区域的菌斑均较基线水平显著减少。与AF组相比,WF组通过RMNPI测量的全口(74.9%对57.5%)、边缘(58.6%对36.7%)、邻面(92.1%对77.4%)、颊面(83.6%对69.1%)和舌面(65.7%对45.4%)的菌斑减少量显著更高。

结论

与飞利浦声波震动牙刷气动力洁牙器相比,Waterpik水牙线与手动牙刷联合使用时,能从牙齿表面(全口、边缘、邻面、颊面和舌面)清除更多菌斑。

相似文献

1
Comparison of two power interdental cleaning devices on plaque removal.两种电动齿间清洁装置在去除牙菌斑方面的比较。
J Clin Dent. 2012;23(1):17-21.
2
Comparison of two power interdental cleaning devices on the reduction of gingivitis.两种电动牙间隙清洁装置对牙龈炎减轻效果的比较。
J Clin Dent. 2012;23(1):22-6.
3
The addition of a water flosser to power tooth brushing: effect on bleeding, gingivitis, and plaque.在电动牙刷的基础上增加水牙线:对出血、牙龈炎和牙菌斑的影响。
J Clin Dent. 2012;23(2):57-63.
4
Evaluation of the plaque removal efficacy of a water flosser compared to string floss in adults after a single use.一次性使用后,比较水牙线与牙线对成人牙菌斑清除效果的评估。
J Clin Dent. 2013;24(2):37-42.
5
Comparison of Water Flosser and Interdental Brush on Plaque Removal: A Single-Use Pilot Study.水牙线与牙间隙刷在去除牙菌斑方面的比较:一项一次性试点研究。
J Clin Dent. 2016 Mar;27(1):23-26.
6
Evaluation of the plaque removal efficacy of three power toothbrushes.三种电动牙刷清除牙菌斑效果的评估
J Int Acad Periodontol. 2006 Jul;8(3):83-8.
7
Efficacy of Two Interdental Cleaning Devices on Clinical Signs of Inflammation: A Four-Week Randomized Controlled Trial.两种牙间隙清洁装置对炎症临床体征的疗效:一项为期四周的随机对照试验。
J Clin Dent. 2015;26(2):55-60.
8
Correlations between two plaque indices in assessment of toothbrush effectiveness.两种牙菌斑指数在评估牙刷效果中的相关性。
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006 Nov 1;7(5):1-9.
9
Comparison of irrigation to floss as an adjunct to tooth brushing: effect on bleeding, gingivitis, and supragingival plaque.将冲洗与牙线作为刷牙辅助手段的比较:对出血、牙龈炎和龈上菌斑的影响。
J Clin Dent. 2005;16(3):71-7.
10
A 30-day clinical comparison of a novel interdental cleaning device and dental floss in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis.一种新型牙间隙清洁装置与牙线在减少牙菌斑和牙龈炎方面的30天临床比较。
J Clin Dent. 2005;16(2):33-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in adolescent orthodontic patients. A randomized-controlled crossover study.带有微爆技术的口腔冲洗器对青少年正畸患者的清洁效果。一项随机对照交叉研究。
Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Sep 13;28(10):524. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05842-9.
2
Oral Irrigation Devices: A Scoping Review.口腔冲洗器:范围综述。
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024 Jun;10(3):e912. doi: 10.1002/cre2.912.
3
Effectiveness of Super Floss and Water Flosser in Plaque Removal for Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
超牙线和水牙线清洁正畸治疗患者牙菌斑的效果:一项随机对照试验
Int J Dent. 2022 Aug 31;2022:1344258. doi: 10.1155/2022/1344258. eCollection 2022.
4
Patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation.患者对使用两代电动冲牙器及其对牙龈炎症影响的看法。
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021 Dec;7(6):1089-1095. doi: 10.1002/cre2.456. Epub 2021 May 31.
5
Antimicrobial penetration in a dual-species oral biofilm after noncontact brushing: an in vitro study.非接触式刷牙后双菌种口腔生物膜中的抗菌剂渗透:一项体外研究。
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 May;18(4):1103-1109. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1097-x. Epub 2013 Sep 10.